Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Foreign.

Good morning and welcome. This is the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This is our 9:30am decision making agenda regarding SB 2132 relating to dental insurance. This measure was heard in this Committee last week and the decision was deferred till today after reviewing the testimony and the substance of the Bill.

Just seems like it needs more work before we pursue it any further. So the recommendation on this measure is to defer indefinitely. Any comments? No. If not, we'll adjourn.

Good morning and welcome to the Housing Chair has come in. So we are convening the 9:31am CPN Housing Committee agenda. Kat, do we need to recess? You're on mute.

Recess? I was just. I was gonna start my other one. Sorry. Oh, no, it's okay.

Morning and welcome.

This is the Tuesday, February 320269:31am Joint agenda between the Senate committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Housing. We're in Hawaii State capitol conference room 2 to 9 and live online. Let me see. And I will yield to the Housing Chair for the first measure, SB 2071.

Thank you, Chair. Our first measure today is SB 2071 relating to housing which clarifies that the dwelling units eligible for the rent to own program shall be units that are for sale and fee simple or leasehold on state or county land under a lease with an initial term of not less than 99 years.

It increases the time period that the sales price of the dwelling units under the Rent to own program shall remain fixed from 5 to 10 years after the rental agreement is executed. Our first testifier today is HHFTC with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members, Dean Minakami, Executive Director of the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation. We stand in our testimony in support for also offering comments.

Thank you. Our second testifier is Hawaii Realtors in support, Followed by Sierra Club of Hawaii in opposition.

Good morning, Chair Chang, Chair Hashimoto and Vice Chair Members of the committee's wing, Tamaka Circle, Hawaii. We're in opposition to this measure. I mean, to be clear, we are nothing against the Rent to one program, nothing against extending the buyback period, the purchase period to 10 years. What we are concerned about though is since the 1978 Con.

Con. You know, there's been decades of commitments made by the state of Hawaii, unfulfilled commitments to pursue reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people over the unlawful theft of the Hawaiian Kingdom's government con Lands.

And so our concern is that this Bill would essentially walk back those commitments by authorizing 99 year leases essentially which is tantamount to a fee essentially of ceded lands of these stolen lands, which would foreclose Nehuan's claims and foreclose reconciliation for close restorative justice for the Kanaka Oibi community.

And so we do have some suggested language if you do want to move this Bill forward to kind of avoid that outcome simply by clarifying that this 99 year lease program will not be applicable to the seated lands caucus. I'm happy to answer any questions, but. Yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you very much. And then we have two individuals in opposition, Dana Kiave and Tara Rojas. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2071? Okay, Members, do we have any questions? Senator Fukunaga, thank you.

Maybe. I'm not sure whether HHFDC or someone else can respond to that. Is there any kind of inventory on the number of acres that seeded lands. Would entail if the.

I believe that the desire was that. Ceded lands would be excluded from the rent to own program. And I believe we could work within that parameter so only using non seeded lands for the rent to own program.

Okay. No, my, my question was really, is there an inventory so you can't separate the non seeded from the seeded lands? I don't know if we ever finished one or whether it's been completed.

There is a General inventory of lands that are ceded and non seeded, but we have to rely on title searches also.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the questions, Members. Actually. So Sierra Club, can I, can you just state the amendment that you're proposing in your late testimony that we received late last.

Yeah, yeah. I apologize for the tardiness of our testimony, but essentially add non seated in, in the, on the first page and on the provision ads authorizing the 99 year leasehold interest in state and county lands to say unseated state and county lands. Thank you. And hhfdc, is that acceptable?

Yeah. All right, further questions? Senator Kim. All right, any further questions, members? If not, we'll proceed to our next bill, which is Senate Bill 2191, relating to limited profit housing associations, which establishes an organizational tax and regulatory framework for limited profit housing associations, establishes a limited profit housing council to oversee limited profit housing associations. Our first testifier is HHFTC, in support.

HHFTC stands on its testimony in support.

Thank you. Hawaii Department of Taxation with comments.

Hawaii Department will stand on its written testimony with comments.

Thank you. Office of the Auditor with comments and Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Good morning, chairs, committee members. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We do join in the testimony of the Office of the Auditor, and we also wanted to have this body exercise some caution when enacting tax exclusions, such as provided in this bill.

With tax exclusions, you really don't know what you're buying or what you're paying for, so would we ask for something more limited and more targeted so you can actually measure what's going on and have some kind of limits so you don't pay too much unwittingly. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And that's all the registered testifiers we have. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2191? Okay. Members, do you have any questions?

If not, our next Bill is Senate Bill 2197 relating to housing, which replaces the five year period during which the sales price of a rent to own dwelling unit shall remain fixed with an option period established by hhfdc. We have one testifier, hhfdc, in support. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2191?

Okay. If not, are there any questions? Numbers 2197. Sorry. Okay. If not, we'll hand it over to the CPN chair for the next two calls.

Okay, thank you. Next measure is SB2180 relating to deposits of public funds.

This measure requires the Director of Finance to consider before the selection of a depository for the state treasury, the beneficial effects to the state of using depositories within the state, including, but not limited to lending at favorable terms for the creation of certain affordable housing units. BNF with comments. Okay, that's all the testimony we've received.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure?

Comments. Association.

Okay, can you just double check with the Clerk afterwards so that I don't believe I've seen it, so I'm not sure it's been made available to the Members. Is there anyone else who would actually. Well, then why don't you come up and just explain what your testimony is since we don't have it.

Tiffany Ajima with the Hawaii Bankers Association. I'm. I'm sorry. I apologize for the late testimony. We provided comments on this measure. Really just questioning some of the definitions. We're not really sure what the intent of the measure is. I do want to note that the banks are already regulated and examined under the Community Reinvestment act.

And so they take into account factors like affordable housing and lending to LMI communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, any questions for the bankers? if not, we'll move on to the last measure on this agenda, SB 2210, relating to housing discrimination. This measure allows the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to prosecute discrimination based on source of income in housing cases. First up, we have the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Council Members. My name is Jade Bluestone. I'm an intern for the Hawaii State Council of Developmental Disabilities. We are here in support of SB 2210, relating to housing discrimination. I would just like to briefly emphasize part of our testimony that stable, accessible housing is foundational for people with disabilities.

Without it, individuals will continue to face the increased risk of homelessness, institutionalization, and unnecessary reliance on crisis driven public systems. Thank you for this time.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission with comments online. We saw you, Heather. We cannot see you now.

How do I unmute this bugger? Okay, I'm disabled. Okay, here we are. Heather... Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Heather McVay with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We love the bill, which gives enforcement teeth to Act 310. We're happy to take on that responsibility, which we already have the infrastructure for. But we are asking for one additional investigator to handle what we anticipate will be about the work of one additional person. So I'll be here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We also have Johnnie-Mae Perry in support. That's all the testimony we have filed. Would you like to testify? Please come up. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm in strong support SB 2210. Stable accessible housing is important for all Hawaii citizens, especially people with disabilities. They risk being placed in skilled nursing without it. Please pass SB 220. Sorry for submitting late testimony. And please let me know if you have any question you may have.

Thank you. Can you please state your name?

Kaili Swan.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay. Do we have someone online?

Yes. Aloha.

Yeah. Please proceed.

This is Tara Rojas. Quick question I've been trying to get in is did you already go over SB2071?

Yes, we did.

Okay. You know why? Because I was in since the meeting started and I wasn't allowed in until now.

Okay. Why don't you go ahead?

Okay. So my testimony regarding SP201 is that these ceded or so called ceded crown and government lands have never been unrelinquished. These lands should not be sold nor leased or effectively alienated again through 99 year leases which is basically taking away the land from whom it belongs to.

Long term dispositions of these lands perpetuate the original injustice and entrenched dispossession. Under the guise of administrative convenience, the state has no authority to permanently encumber what was never lawfully relinquished again. These 99 year leases. Have to stop.

And so I oppose sb2071 and mahalo nui for allowing me to testify as trying to testify on all these bills at the same time. Mahalo Nui.

Thank you for being patient with the technology and I'm glad you were able to testify. Is there anyone else online or in the room who would like to testify on SB2210 or anything else? Last call. If not. Okay, we're going to move into decision making. I'll yield to the Housing Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. We're ready for some decision making. We'll start with Senate Bill 2071 relating to housing having conferred, the Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments.

We'll take HHFTC's amendment to make the 10 year period flexible by adopting language from Senate Bill 2197 which replaces for the first five years after the rental agreement is executed with during the option period established by the corporation and replaces the words five year with option.

In addition, we will take the Sierra Club of Hawaii amendment to amend page one, lines eight to nine to read as follows. Leasehold on non ceded state or county land under a lease having an initial term of not less than 99 years. Members, any discussion or questions? Okay. If not so for Senate Bill 2071.

Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes.

Members SB 2071 Chairs recommendations passed with amendment. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Elefante, Senator Rhodes is excused. Senator Favela recommendations adopted.

Cpn same recommendation passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye thank you.

Vice Chair also votes Aye. Senator lama I Senator McKel. Yes. Senator Aya. Thank you. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next measure is Senate Bill 2191 relating to limited profit housing associations. Chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendments.

Will include the amendments suggested by the Office of the Auditor to include a statement of purpose for this tax incentive regarding among other things, the housing shortage and the need for greater housing supply for local people and also clear measurable.

Clear measurables or target metrics to determine whether this tax incentive is meeting its incentive purpose based on, among other things, the housing units being built for local people.

We'll also take The Department of Taxation's suggestion to apply Section 3 to Taxable years beginning after December 312025 and amend Section 6 to take effect on January 12027 to allow for the necessary form and instructional changes. And finally, there are technical, non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency.

Members, do we have any questions or discussion? Okay. If not for Senate Bill 2191, the chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendments.

Chair votes Aye. Members, SB 2191. Chair, recommendations passed with amendments. Chair votes I. Any Members voting with reservations? Any Members voting? No. With all others voting I with excuse of Senator Rhodes for this measure and all others. Motions adopted.

Thank you. Cpn. Same recommendation passing with amendments. Chair Voltai.

Chair. Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are any voting with reservations or in opposition hearing? None. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Thank you. And for the third measure on this agenda today, Senate Bill 2197. We'll be deferring this as we've already addressed these issues in the Senate Bill 2071 that we just. That we just passed.

Okay. Next measure is SB 2180 relating to. Sorry, do you have to defer that? Zero, yeah. Same recommendation for CPN Committee for SB2197, defer indefinitely. Thank you. Next measure is SB 2180 relating to deposits of public funds. Noting the very late testimony from the Bankers association and the inability of the Members to review it.

We'll defer the decision on this one day. The last measure on this agenda is SB 2210 relating to housing discrimination. The recommendation on this. zero, the. We will defer decision making. Excuse me. On SB2180 to tomorrow, Wednesday, February 4th at 9:35am in this room 229. The CPN Committee.

Do you have a roll date? Yes. And so for the Committee on Housing, we'll be deferring decision making until Thursday, February 5th at 1:00pm in room 225.

Okay, thank you. And the last measure on this agenda, SB2210. The recomm recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments adding a blank appropriation for one full time employee to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to add an additional housing discrimination investigator.

And then we will also send a memo to Ways and Means that they should re refer on any discussion.

That was my only concern was it's not a trigger re referral. Perhaps maybe this could be addressed in. The budget to keep the Bill moving along this present track. Anyway, thanks for that.

Okay. No other comments? Yes. Zero, yeah, sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, then the recommendation again is to pass with amendments. Chair Voltai.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or in opposition hearing? None. Measures adopted.

And for the Committee on Housing? Same recommendation for Senate Bill 2210 to pass with amendments. Chair votes. I remember.

That's be 2210 pass with amendments. Any reservations? He knows. All others going aye. Recommendations adopted. Thank you very much. Thank you.

We're adjourned. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning and welcome. This is our CPN Joint Committee hearing agenda with the Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. It's not. This is the 9:35am agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capital. The first measure on the agenda is SB 2045 relating to combat sports.

This measure renames the State Boxing Commission of Hawaii as the Boxing and Combat Sports Commission of Hawaii and amends the jurisdiction of the commission to include combat sports contests, prohibits no rules combat or similar combat sports contests, and repeals the existing mixed martial arts contest program. There's also an appropriation.

First up, we have the dcca, Hawaii State Boxing Commission with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Justin Zhou. I'm the Executive officer for the State Boxing Commission of Hawaii, here to stand on the written testimony and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much next, we have Director Nidinondo online with comments.

Not pressing on. Zoom Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure on this agenda. zero, question for the boxing commission.

Thank you. Real quick question. Do you see this Bill as giving you the authority to regulate all forms of martial arts such as judo, karate, Jiu Jitsu, aikido and taekwondo?

Well, I think the commission asked that inquiry, due to that uncertainty, if we could get some guidance or clarification on that, that would be much appreciated. We just don't want to. I believe the legislature's intent is to not cover those, so we just want to make sure that that is the case.

Okay, but you, do you currently regulate the amateur combat sports?

Correct? The amateur mixed martial arts program.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. You know, in your testimony you did raise that concern. However, with respect to mixed martial arts types of competitions. You know, one of the questions that arose in the last several years had to do with the availability of medical and other kinds of assistance.

So in your comments, you notice that, you know, amateur boxing competitions don't really require an on site ambulance. However, with respect to mixed martial arts type of competitions, that is kind of a standard requirement.

And it would seem that if the commission is moving forward in this direction, you would want to adhere to the basic defined requirements for those types of competitions.

Correct. And I don't think the commission disagrees with the purpose of the ambulance. In an ideal world, we would like to have an ambulance at every amateur event, at every combat sport related event, even grappling related events ideally.

But the Reality is that when we hear from industry Members, Members is that the cost of putting these amateur events on, it's not really for profit. Right? There's no. It's purely for training and development.

So having these high barriers in terms of financial costs is I think, creating a disincentive or the inability to get to that point where they can actually develop the amateur skill.

I guess that would seem to me to be the role of the commission because you do have experienced Members who have seen the growth and development of the mixed martial arts industry.

So in comparison with boxing, which is kind of a much more contained set of experiences, mixed martial arts opens the door to a much wider variety of potential injuries. So.

So, I mean, I can give some context from the boxing side of things in terms of how they handle amateur events. Essentially what they have is an on site inspector that covers protocols and medical needs.

If there are such things as severe injuries or chaos, technical knockouts, what they do is they have the OIC coordinate with a emergency room or hospital prior to the event and, and ensure that there is a neurologist available for any kind of medical needs that need to be attended to.

If there are situations like that, typically the on site doctor, the MD or licensed physician is the one who makes that decision as to what the most appropriate course of action would be for that specific contestant.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. If not, we'll move on to the last measure on this agenda, SB 2354, relating to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. This measure requires the DCCA to make certain contact information for newly registered entities available online, requires the director to transmit the contact information to DBEDT. First up, we have DBEDT, in support.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, committee members. Dennis Ling with DBEDT. DBEDT stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. DCCA Business Registration with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. Ty Nohara with DCCA for Business Registration Division. We provided written comments and we stand on that, but happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Retail Merchants of Hawaii, in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Retail Merchants. I'm Dave Erdman, the interim president and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Aloha. Retail Merchants of Hawaii strongly supports SB 2354. A couple of key points.

Hawaii has over 200,000 registered business, but the state reportedly has direct contact information with a small portion of them, perhaps less than 5%. Many business simply cannot be reached. Retailers often miss critical information about grants, relief programs, workforce training, emergency response because of the communication gap.

SB 2354 is is a common-sense fix that allows appropriate data sharing so state agencies can communicate directly with businesses they are meant to support. Finally, the bill strengthens economic resilience and helps ensure small, local, and neighbor island businesses are not left behind. For these reasons, Retail Merchants of Hawaii supports SB 2354. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry Association, in support online.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. We also have written testimony in support from the Hawaii Restaurant Association and the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, questions? Senator McKelvey.

DCCA, DCCA? Somebody from DC-- is anybody from DCCA here? Ms. Nohara? No? You there? I guess not. Well, let's throw it-

She's coming. She's coming on. Go ahead.

Okay. Let's throw it out there. That doesn't look like her. That's AI, right?

There you go. Go ahead.

I've noticed in your testimony you're asking for an outside appropriation for this measure. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. I'm-- go ahead. Yes, please.

I'm sorry. So it would take a lot of effort to amend all the forms, amend--not amend--but also change our system to allow for the additional data to be then captured and then maintained.

Well, normally, my concern is this is all done through CRF funding, through fees that are collected on the beneficiaries of the program. And that this would kind of be an outside appropriation to that could concern me as it could be a new trend. Maybe it's warranted, maybe it's not. But if that were to fail, couldn't you guys just increase the fees of the members to cover the cost for implementing this bill?

I mean, we could just request, in the next session, to increase our ceiling to allow for our current funding through CRF. However, we would need additional time to do all of this because, to amend all the forms, capture the data, and then provide that back to the public will take an additional effort.

But you could-- you do have enough money in the fund now to where a ceiling raise could accomplish the fiscal needs that you've outlined in the bill, right?

Yes. I think if we amend the ceiling increase, yes.

Okay. All right, thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Members, any other questions? Senator Wakai.

Dennis.

Yes, sir?

How many businesses do you have contact information for?

We have about 9,000.

Okay. So DCCA has 204,000 registered businesses. We task you with helping to enhance and grow businesses in Hawaii, and you have contact information for 900. Is there a problem?

Yeah. We have a website that we have people signed up and look at. We send a newsletter, we do PR, but, you know, it is still a difficult road to haul to get people to sign up, especially the entrepreneurs, the ones who just starting out in business. You know, they could avail themselves of a lot of programs. Those are the ones we're trying to reach, new companies.

Okay. So you have contact information for less than 5% of businesses in Hawaii. We talk about diversification, the economy. We always talk about, wow, 99% of Hawaii businesses are small businesses. I'm always looking forward to when is it going to be 98%, because 2% became medium or large. But we can't get any traction.

We're always bottom of the nation when it comes to business development. And part of the reason, could it be that you, as the arm of government to promote businesses, have access to less than 5% of businesses to tell them about grants, about changes in laws, about whatever is going on in government?

For example, during PPP, when it was very difficult for people to understand how they were going to apply for the payroll protection grant money, that they could have relied on you. You guys had the expertise, but unless you had a really astute banker, it was really difficult for companies to navigate through that grant application process. So don't you think that-- there's a glaring problem here with the way we have 204,000 businesses and you have contact information for 900 or 9,000.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think the more contact we have with people who are interested in getting into businesses, the more opportune it is for them as well as for us to reach them.

I mean, not only do we have, you know, loans, or grants, or business services, but we have workshops, conferences, which we would like to market to. And we're limited to doing our regular PR through the newspapers or social media, but direct marketing helps.

Can I ask a question of DCCA? Thank you, Dennis.

Go ahead. I think she can hear you.

Why would it be so difficult? I imagine DCCA could put the 204,000 registered businesses, their contact information, and just put it in Excel file and give it to Dennis Ling and DBEDT. Why is that so difficult?

Because we don't have the contact information for all those entities. We don't require that currently. So this bill does require additional information to be provided by the entities, which, as the bill requires, we will then make public. So that would be the addition. But up until now, none of the entities require contact information.

What is already required is the mailing address, the mailing address of the principal place of business, a registered agent, and the registered agent's address. But the phone number and email, none of that is required, so we don't have that for all those entities.

We're in the 21st century. I mean, we passed the Pony Express days. I don't understand why you wouldn't be gathering means to electronically communicate with businesses. We're going to use a stamp and an envelope to communicate with all 204,000 businesses in the state?

No. We do receive online filings, and those people have accounts within Hawaii Business Express, and then we can send it back, the approvals, through their dashboards. And so we do have some of the information, but because it's not required, I don't think it should be publicly available. But now, if this bill passes, then it will be required and then it will be publicly available.

Can I ask a follow-up? You have two avenues to collect the address information in your business registration office now. You have the paper form and you have the online portal, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So-- you know what? The deputy is here. Why don't we have the deputy come up here, because he has done a lot of work revamping the DCCA's online access. Between the two of you, how difficult would it be to amend the online portal to add an email input and a phone number?

It will require effort, but I mean, it's not a huge, gargantuan effort.

Not a huge gargantuan effort. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions?

Yeah, I have questions.

Senator Kim.

So you folks only do what's required. You folks don't go beyond to do what makes sense and what is-- what is in the best interests of government. If it's not in the law, you're not going to do it. You're not going to collect the email or something like that unless we put it in law?

Can I chime in?

Yeah, go ahead.

So, if it were the online filings, though, to communicate with the customer if there's an issue and they do provide that information, then we do have, again, that email address. However, because it's not required, we don't make it publicly available. So I think that's the key difference. So with this bill, it'll be required information that then is required to then be publicly available.

Yeah, but in doing your work, again, you folks can make rules and regulations. You can determine what might be necessary. So it just bothers me that it's not required. But you folks should be the experts. You folks are the ones that's running it.

So we look to you folks to make sure that you gather all the important documents, and if we need changes, then you should come up with it. So I think you should be looking at that. The other question I have is, what do you do with these businesses? I mean, other than collect the information?

Because I know I've had constituents who've had complaints about businesses, and they've called DCCA, and you folks said, you know, you folks don't keep complaints, you folks don't monitor the businesses, you don't do anything. So the consumer has no way of being protected because there's bad businesses out there. What is the role of DCCA in that?

We're ministerial when it comes to that. So we're here to collect the information, register a business, if it complies with all the statutory requirements, and maintain the state's business registry. We're not a regulatory--

Okay. So you require them to register. So the public feels that if you're registering them, then why are you registering them if it's not to help, you know, protect them in some way? So have some information if a business is bad. So-- and therein lies the discrepancy because they're understanding that you're registering them, so therefore, they should be, you know, businesses of good record, I guess.

Well, in a lot of situations, a business does need to be registered in order to get a GE tax ID, in order to get a business loan, and that type of thing, right? So those other entities, like the banks, they'll double check with our office to make sure entity's in good standing.

But I completely understand the frustration with the regulation of the actual business. However, generally, the businesses are part of different industries which then are also regulated under different provisions of different agencies.

So the public would go and complain to--well, OCP--

They would complain to OCP and then they would follow up with an investigation and--

Right. But is there a registry that that complaint goes on that public would be aware? So somebody else, you know, going to that business?

I think-- can we-- I think the question, Ms. Nohara, is, do you have a referral system? If I'm hearing the question right, it doesn't sound like your office, because it's ministerial, has any referral capability to the other enforcement divisions in the DCCA presently.

Correct. But we do let the customer know if somebody calls us as to which potential other agency could possibly have jurisdiction, including the AG's Office.

Just because you're being nice, it's not required in your statute anywhere?

No, it's not. But it's also because I think there is that confusion.

Any other questions, members? Senator Wakai.

Sorry, just one follow-up. Ms. Nohara, this bill contemplates you giving that information to DBEDT, but would it be prudent for us to give this to the Department of Taxation as well?

I imagine there's 204 businesses out there, a bunch of them probably not paying their taxes, but DOTAX has no idea that they continue to function without paying their taxes. So would you feel comfortable giving this information to DBEDT as well as DOTAX?

I believe so. I mean, it will then be public, so anybody could-- we could give it to anybody.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay, if not, unless there are questions, I'm prepared to go into decision making. I haven't conferred with the other chair. Okay, so we'll move on to decision making on the first measure, SB2045. This is relating to contract combat sports.

You know, this Bill was the product of a working group that was put together with the late Chair Nakashima in the House and myself in the summer of 2023.

So it is a little perplexing that after two years of hearings on the Bill, the DCCA now suddenly has a vast array of new amendments that they would like in the Bill since they facilitated the working group. But they are good questions and I actually do appreciate the meaningful dialogue.

So we will defer decision making on this Bill for one week to contemplate all of those requested changes. The CPN Committee will make a decision on this measure next week, Tuesday, February 102026 at 9:30am in Conference Room.

2 to 9 and then commit on economic development, Tourism will defer decision making to February 10th, conference room two to nine at 1:00pm okay, thank you.

And the final measure, SB2354. This is the online information. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with the defective effective date of July 12050. Keep the conversation going and to work with the Department on what it might actually take to implement this measure in addition to other elements that are discussed in the hearing. Any discussion.

Senator McKelvey, just real quickly, I appreciate.

Your work on this and it is a work in progress. However, I have concerns about the funding request and that they should be raising their ceiling. So I'll go WR for now.

Okay. I'll just note that I have a hard time believing an intern couldn't redo a paper form and add two tiles onto an online portal. After working with the Department over the last three years to redo the entire front facing portion of their website. So it's a.

It's a Wham issue anyway and it's referred to that Committee after this one. But I appreciate your concern. Senator Wakai.

Can we add dotex on there since Nahara said she's receptive to that?

I actually have concerns about the DOTEX thing. I would. I would be willing to consider that in a different measure. This is about business development versus enforcement and I think we should have a broader discussion about what we want B Reg to do because I think they gotta definitely do more than they have now. Okay, thank you.

If there are no other comments. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair Volzai.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes. I of the CPN Members present. Are there any voting with reservations or objections? Thank you. Senator McKelvey. All others in the affirmative. Senator Awa is excused. Measure is adopted.

Thank you.

Welcoming economic development and tourism. Same request. Chair goes.

Aye Vice Chair votes yes. Senator Fukunaga. Aye Senator Kim Aye. Senator Favela. Aye chair your recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you. adjourned.

Okay. Good morning again and welcome. This is the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee. 9:31am agenda on Tuesday, February 42026 in Conference Room 2 to 9. The first measure on this agenda is SB2436 relating to charitable solicitation.

This measure requires professional solicitors operating public collection receptacles to solicit donations of non perishable tangible property who later resell the items to deposit funds with charitable organizations within a specified time frame, provide certain information in financial reports and prominently disclose certain information on collection receptacles.

First up, we have the Attorney General's office with comments not present on zoom.

Chair.

Chair is Program Administrator Eunice Park. Department offers two comments to the Bill. One we're asking for delay effective date of January 12027.

That's because the Bill does require reporting of additional information that we do not currently require of professional solicitors, such as the weight of the contribution that's donated to the professional solicitor as the dollar amount of compensation per pound of the donation.

We don't currently collect that information and we're asking for appropriation for additional staffing with the clarification that the funding will be coming from the charity special Fund, not from the General funding. And I'm open to any questions that the community might have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Goodwill Hawaii with comments. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Vice Chair. Good morning Members of the Committee. My name is Katie Chen. I'm the President and CEO of Goodwill Hawaii. Goodwill Hawaii has been its own independent 501c3 nonprofit in the state of Hawaii since 1959.

We provide services statewide in the areas of job creation, job education, training and job placement, particularly for disadvantaged populations. We're writing or Sorry, I'm sitting here today to offer our strong support for SBA 2436, which this is all about transparency and trust to the donor here in the state of Hawaii.

We believe that this Bill is a critical step forward that will help maintain donors trust and ensure that no one is unaware about who their donations actually benefit when they make that drop into a donation bin here in the state of Hawaii.

Civil Beat recently highlighted a troubling trend of collection sites that have been cropping up all over Oahu for the last couple of years. And they're also now on the. We're seeing them coming up on the neighbor islands as well.

And operators advertise the donations received will benefit a particular nonprofit organization, but the reality is that it benefits such a tiny minuscule of the amount that they collect. Actually goes to the charity that they highlight. And we believe that donors just aren't aware of this.

So without action to clarify the requirements of these items in the current act, they will be able to continue essentially misrepresenting to the public what they are stoning. I'm sorry, I'm out of time. So I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. We also have late testimony, written testimony and support from the Hawaii alliance of Nonprofit Organizations, the National Kidney foundation of Hawaii, and Mike Onofrieri. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Please come up. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, vice chair and the Committee Members. My name is Noriko Namiki, CEO at YWC Oahu. I submitted, I believe, my late testimony. I apologize for my tardiness. Yeah.

We'd like to express a Strong support for SB2436 because many nonprofit organizations like us and Goodwill with 501 status are scrambling to diversify our sources of funding to keep much needed services in the community.

And that is simply because many of the programs we operate, you know, we do not charge anything to the participants because they are not able to pay for the services rendered.

For example, we provide all the services under the Dress for Success program at no cost to the participants, again, because they are not able to pay for the services. And then through this program alone, we provide, we serve more than 500 women a year. And then we need to cover 100% of the program cost year after year.

And so the YWC Oahu benefit sale is a crucial source of revenue, a lifeline for all our programming, including Dress for Success. And then also last Friday and Saturday, we served nearly 400 high school students with prom dresses so that their families and financial situations would not impact one of their memorable moments in the high school life.

Just like a Dress for Success, we charge nothing to those students and we cover 100% of the costs on our own. Therefore, we appreciate the intent of SB2036 to hold those professional solicitors accountable. Thank you for your support for this.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, any questions? Okay, we'll move on to the next measure, SB 2471, relating to powers of artificial purposes. Persons. Powers of artificial persons.

This measure reaffirms that artificial persons created under state law possess only those powers that are necessary or convenient to carry out lawful business and charitable or organizational purposes, and that those powers do not include the power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures.

First up, we have DCCA Business Registration with comments online.

Morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, Ty Nohara with DCCA Business Registration. We've offered written testimony with comments and we stand by that and happy to answer any question.

Thank you very much. Attorney General's office with comments not present.

Altoon Chair.

Good morning. We have him in the room. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Ashley Tanaka. We did submit written comments outlining our concerns under the Constitution in light of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.

We understand many are frustrated with that ruling, but we did state that it remains the law of the land and it is our duty and the State of Hawaii's duty to follow that ruling.

Besides constitutional concerns under the First Amendment, we did also address the that there is a substantial risk of adverse litigation should this Bill pass into law. Thank you and I am available for questions.

Thank you. Okay. Center for American Progress with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today. I stand on my written testimony and support and will be available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. We have the Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action in support online. Good morning.

Aloha, Aria Juliet Castillo. I'm testifying in support on behalf of Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action. Bills like these are fundamental because they're addressing the structural problems in our democracy. When artificial entities are allowed to dominate elections with money, there's no amount of civic engagement that can fully level the playing field.

Over time, unlimited political spending by corporations and other entities have distorted our elections and drowned out the voices of real people. This measure isn't anti business or anti organization. It's pro democracy. It restores balance by making clear that political power should belong to the people, not legal structures designed to spend money at a scale.

I just want to thank Chair Keokolole for your bold leadership in introducing similar legislation and then collaborating with Senator Rhodes on this particular proposal. We really appreciate it and we strongly urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network in support online.

Yes. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Marlene Tom and I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Indivisible Hawaii in strong support of SB2471.

Ms. Tom, can you turn your video on? You can keep talking and we'll extend out your time, but we can't see you. Okay, go ahead. We got you. Good morning.

Okay. Okay, great. Yes, I tried, but I couldn't. Indivisible Hawaii believe that artificial persons do not have the power to spend money or anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures.

For too long, corporations have, have spent unlimited money and led to the creation of super PACs that, that have tainted our elections and eroded trust in our elections. So we appreciate and thank you for supporting SB2471. I stand by my written testimony and can answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the in person tests. zero, wait, we have Josh Frost in support good morning.

Vice Chair, Members Committee. Thank you very much. My name is Josh Frost. I'm here as an individual and I'm not representing aclu. I just wanted to highlight a couple things. A, it is critically important for this, for this legislation to work, that it encompass the broad range of corporate entities that exist in Hawaii law.

To start cherry picking or, you know, I know there may be a deference to labor unions or, you know, nonprofits, but the only way that it works and the strongest way to, we think to keep it from withstanding legal challenges, that it is all encompassing.

The other thing that I wanted to highlight is the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United is based on powers given to corporations by states.

And as far as I'm aware, and I'm not an attorney, but I've done extensive reading, the courts have never taken away the authority of states to define the breadth and depth of corporate power within state law. So for all those reasons, I support the Bill. I appreciate you guys hearing it and. I hope you'll move it forward.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room or online who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. In total, we have 74 individuals who have submitted written testimony on this measure. All in support. Support. And one more individual who offered testimony with comments. Members, are there any questions? Senator McKelvey, Vice Chair.

Okay. I guess we would be seeking to ask Mr. Moore to comment on some of the questions that have arisen, particularly with respect to the range of entities that would be covered by this Bill.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I can't start my video. There we go. The. The Attorney General's office. An objection based on Citizens United. One of the things that this legislation does is it. It doesn't violate Citizens United, it bypasses it entirely.

Citizens United depended on an entity, a nonprofit, that was fully empowered by the state of Virginia to do anything that a human can do. What this Bill does is say, look, we're not going to create corporations like that anymore. And 200 years of precedent say that we can set that up however we want.

We're going to say you have all the powers to do your business, but not the power to spend in politics. And that makes those corporations, those new corporations that you've redefined in Hawaii, fundamentally different from the plaintiffs in Citizens United. Citizens United did not say that the state has to give any particular power to any corporation.

It has never done that, ever. It has always left that to the states. That is unbroken corporation law for 200 years in this country. As to the entities, I strongly agree with Josh Frost. You have to affect everybody. This is the dark money that's in this system, the unaccounted money. I don't care who it's being spent off.

If it's being spent on behalf of progressives, conservatives, who it's being spent against, that is money. It feeds and pays for the most corrosive communications in our politics. And it's the, those are the ads that damage people's faith in our democracy more than any other. And so you. So, yes, include all nonprofits. Yes, include all labor.

Yes, include all industry groups and business corporations. That also makes it more legally defensible because it makes it look like you're not picking and choosing speakers and you're, you're not.

Okay, thank you. That's. That was the clarification I was looking for.

Thank you, Senator McKelvey. Thank you. Attorney General's office. Don't go anywhere.

Anyway, Mr. Moore, can you queue up your video? We might ask you a follow up question and then. Thank you.

Well, I mean, first of all, you're an attorney, right, sir? Yes, I was. Okay, good.

An attorney at the Federal Election Commission for seven years before this.

See, the. I think the Attorney General hit the. Nail on the head. We're frustrated, but we're bound to the Constitution. At a time where the Constitution is. Being trashed all over the place for the, the purposes of goals, we have. To adhere to the rule on the Constitution. So I'd like you to address the.

Testimony of the Attorney General and the. Points that were made by the Attorney. General that if we pass this, it. Will get struck down in courts because. Once again, we're selling a false Bill.

Of goods to the people out there who want to see change in the election process by saying this will do it, and then it gets struck down. So I want you to respond in point to the Attorney General's testimony and. How this Bill would somehow circumnavigate their. Very real concerns that we could be.

Basically sending this thing into a black hole of litigation. Even though we want something to be.

Absolutely. And thank you for the question. And I've been working on this for two years and that is a question I've received many times. And the answer is it's no state has made a move like this in 100 years.

You know, basically all the states kind of gave all the corporations all the powers 100 years ago and let it ride.

And every piece of legislation we've ever seen that we've seen on the federal level, when I was at the Federal Election Commission working for the chair as her attorney, every bit of state legislation we've seen has been on the regulatory rights side of things.

And yes, the Attorney General is absolutely correct that if this Bill regulated the rights of corporations to do those things to spend in politics, yes, it would be struck down immediately and the state of Hawaii would pay out a lot of money and costs.

But you have their testimony in front. Of you at all. They talked about selective speech. Was the, the point they tried to, to bring, to bring in. Do you see what I want? You know, I've got the testimony. Specific concerns. Maybe you could repeat your specific of Kern's.

I think what Senator is getting at, Mr. Morris, our understanding of Citizens United holding is that corporations do have the right to speech through political campaign donations, as they are considered associations of individuals.

So while states do retain the authority to determine what powers a corporation has, the corporation is still made up an associated individuals, and so the still have the right to speak.

And under Citizens United, this Bill would be trying to remove some of their powers to engage in election activity or ballot, ballot issue activity, which they do have the right to speak under.

Yes, thank you for that. And that's the, that is the, that was my operating assumption, you know, on how, what the breadth of Citizens United was for many years while I was working upon this. I. Powers come before rights. Powers define what the organization actually is.

If the state of Hawaii creates a Department of Education, it has certain powers that it gives to it as a state entity. It does things, it can't do other things. It defines every bit of that. That has been the rule with corporations for 200 years.

And so what Citizens United said was this plaintiff before us, Citizens United, a Virginia chartered nonprofit that has been given the power to do everything that a human can do. Their right to spend in politics can't be regulated. And that's right. That is the rule of Citizens United. But it depends on a fully empowered plaintiff.

And what the state of Hawaii would be doing is saying like, zero, we're just we're not going to have those kind of corporations in this state anymore. It's what, you know, bills have been dropped on this end in New York and Vermont and Virginia, and it's moving as a ballot initiative in Montana.

It is unlike a genuinely new reform and it doesn't regulate the rights. If it did, it would be a loser. It would absolutely be a loser going to the powers. It's not a semantic difference. It's an incredibly powerful different way of going about this.

The Supreme Court, I mean, I, I would urge the Attorney General's office to take a look at the report I've written that's in my testimony here, but also take a look at the precedent going back to 1819 that basically says if a state says that it's got something in its, in its, in its code that says we can change up the powers of corporations, it has an absolute right to do that, plenary power to do that.

It has never said otherwise. And that comes before any discussion of rights. And I'll give you the last thing on this is the National Banking acts of the 1860s created the national banks.

So anytime you see a bank that says First National Bank of whatever, that's a national bank chartered by Congress, charted by the Federal Government, not by a state, those banks have never, ever, ever been given the power to spend in elections. And that's never been challenged.

No court has ever said, zero, no, no, you must give them the power to spend in elections because as a corporation, they must have the power and the right associated with that power to spend in elections. Courts can't do that. Courts have never done.

And so we have a living, breathing example of why, you know, corporations do not have some kind of natural right to spend in politics. If they don't have the power to do it. They don't. There's nothing for the rights to hold on to.

And I appreciate deeply the Attorney General's concerns, and it's one I've heard over and over again. But this difference between powers and rights is something that really has to be wrestled with before you can come to any kind of conclusion about this.

Does that response change your opinion at all? In light of that response, does your opinion still stand?

I believe I have opinions still storms.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jared. Appreciate that.

Okay, I have a follow up. Hold on. So I think the last comment speaks directly to my concern, which is that you sum up your testimony by saying this Bill is vulnerable to constitutional challenge in effectively permitting a corporation to keep certain state granted benefits only if it gives up its power to engage in election activity.

You seem to presume inherent rights in a corporation. Do corporations have inherent rights?

I believe the only right we are really addressing in this Bill is their right to speak.

So you believe a corporation has an inherent right to speech?

I don't know if I use the word inherent, but I believe that as corporations are deemed associations of individuals, they.

Do have right as defined by state law. Right, right, which we can change. I guess my concern here is, you know, the Constitution articulates natural rights that people possess. They don't possess those rights because the constitution identifies them. They already have the rights.

The Constitution articulates them and then places restrictions on the government to where they cannot violate those rights. Here it seems like you are presuming that corporations also have those natural rights, which I don't think jives with the nature of the corporation, which is created in our state laws by our legislative authority to define what these associations are.

And I think that's. You know, I don't want to speak for Mr. Moore, but that's my concern about your testimony. Because when you say that a corporation can keep its state granted benefits, state granted benefits only if it gives up its power, you're sort of presuming that they had that power to begin with.

And when I look at a corporation, I think it's sort of like a contract that an entity is forming with the state. They get the power to move and act as if they are a person, to form contracts and all of that. And what do they get in return for it?

Limited liability, principally tax benefits that human beings cannot take advantage of. There are specific, articulable, very valuable advantages that corporations receive in return for chartering themselves in accordance with state law.

And when you say they are giving up their power, I think you're presuming that they have rights that don't exist except for them entering into this agreement with the state, that they're going to follow state law in accordance with their charter.

But the Supreme Court gave them that right.

No, the state gave them that right. An entity can go and form a corporation in a different state and they follow those, but the state.

So I guess my question, a specific question to you is how do you square that statement that you made at the end of the testimony with the state constitution's provisions declaring that special rights that are created by the state irrevocable are not irrevocable.

If the state constitution says if we grant special rights, they are not irrevocable, the state maintains the power to grant special rights and to take away those rights under the law. And so I guess I would, I would like to hear your response on how your statement conflicts potentially with the state constitution.

I think the issue we were trying to reason that last paragraph you're referring to about the unconstitutional conditions challenge is that I think the problem is the conditional aspect of it, that yes, we agree that states are entitled to confer powers upon corporations, but I think the problem here is the conditional part that zero, if they engage or exercise certain powers relating to elections and the ballot activity, then in that case the condition is that the state will step in and remove previously granted powers given to them.

So I intend to defer the decision on this measure one day because it's a significant measure and I would like to measure twice and cut once. So I would like to ask the attorney General's office to go back in and take some time to respond to my question.

If I want to form a book club or a Bible study group, that Bible study group does not have the inherent right to limit liability on the group. I have to go and ask the state via the conditions of a charter to be conferred that power.

And so I feel like the state and the people of Hawaii do have the authority to set conditions on how they want that association to function so that the book club can decide whether they want to become a non profit instead or a union or just keep it unofficial and maintain liability individually.

So I'll stop there and are there any other questions before we. Like I said, I intend to defer decision making on this.

No, no. I just hope this one thing help. Us come up with something that will survive a potential court challenge. I think that's the point I was. Trying to make earlier. Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

No guarantees, of course, but thank you. Okay, if there are no more questions then we'll move to the next measure, SB 2829.

Sorry to interrupt, Chair. Mr. Moore has his hand up.

Yeah, we're, we're, we're—the Q and A portion is for members to ask questions of testifiers. The questions have been asked and answered. So, we're going to move on. Yeah. SB 2829, relating to the powers of artificial purposes.

This measure makes any state-chartered corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, and others lack the legal capacity to make expenditures or contributions in connection with elections, so similar measure. First up, we have DCCA business registration, with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ty Nohara, the...Registration Division of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Ashley Tanaka. We did submit written comments similar to SB 2471 outlining the same concerns we have under the Constitution, as well as the risk of litigation, adverse litigation that this Bill poses. Thank you and available for questions.

Thank you. We also have written testimony from Life of the Lion, IMUA Alliance, the League of Women Voters, comments from the Hawaii Credit Union League and support from Ross Isokane. Is there anyone else would like to testify? Okay, Members, questions on this one?

My recommendation is also that we're going to defer that day to just double, triple check. Okay. If there are no questions, then we'll move to the next measure, which is SB 2495, relating to consumer protection.

This measure clarifies the Office of Consumer, clarifies the Office of Consumer Protection may use its authority to enforce laws and bring civil actions with regard to disputes arising under the Residential Landlord Tenant Code. First up, we have OCP with comments online.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Radji Tolentino on behalf of the Office of Consumer Protection. We will stand on our testimony in opposition to this measure. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Oh, thank you. We testify, we stand on our testimony providing comments.

With comments. Sorry. Thank you for the clarification and for standing on your testimony. We also have Johnnie-Mae Perry in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Senator. Senator, excuse me for the horrible breach of protocol.

Thank you, Rep. Thank you.

A thousand sorrys, Senator Lamosao.

Thank you, Chair. This is for the Hawaii Realtors. I just wanted to... I know you folks are still meeting in your working group, but can you give us some initial or like some, a preview of what you folks have been working on and some of the recommendations that already have been like talked about in the working group for this?

Thank you, Senator. That's an excellent question. So for everybody's knowledge, last year this Legislature passed the creation of a Residential Landlord Tenant Working Group, which is actually a three year working group chaired by the Judiciary and with representatives from representing both property owners as well as tenants and attorneys who specialize in landlord tenant code issues, so on and so forth.

And so this group has been meeting together about once a month since convening. I think we've had maybe four meetings so far. OCP is also a member of the of the working group as well.

And thus far we've been really taking a methodical process kind of going through the landlord tenant code itself. But also having special presentations, trying to educate all stakeholders present on, for instance, the passage of the eviction mediation pilot program. What are its implications, trying to get education out to all involved.

But I think that it's definitely going to be a long and methodical process, and we do want to make sure that we educate ourselves thoroughly about all issues that tenants and landlords have. I think the latest is that subcommittees are going to be formed for tenant issues and landlord issues to really start to deep dive on it.

We're kind of in the beginning stages of the working group, but definitely I think all stakeholders are looking forward to really getting involved and really deep diving on all of the issues. And so that's why our comments state that we'd like to bring this and many other issues to the working group to have a deeper and informed discussion about.

I just have a really quick follow up. I just wanted to get like a time line of like when you expect to have your initial recommendations then and when that will be presented to the Legislature.

Thank you. I believe an initial report was filed by the Judiciary as the chair of the working group to the Legislature this year. But because we had already met maybe only two or three times at that point, there really wasn't too much in terms of recommendations, just an explanation of what, of what we had discussed thus far. I believe the final report is due at the end of the three year working group. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Mr. Tolentino, OCP. Hi. In your testimony... I have a question. In your testimony, you describe HRS 521-77 as a self help law. Where does it say that?

Well, the history of 521-77 was that it was enacted in 1976 in response to the Supreme Court disciplinary board that found a conflict of interest when our office was providing legal service, court appointed legal services to indigent tenants. So that conflict of interest removed our authority to represent tenants in landlord tenant cases.

So it became a self help I guess by default. Or it became... We could not enforce it at that point. We couldn't represent landlord, I mean tenants in these, in these hearings.

Okay, but it doesn't say anywhere in the law that it is a self help law, is that correct?

It doesn't say that.

Okay, so, but so it does say that OCP may receive, investigate, and attempt to resolve any dispute arising under 521. Besides providing free information services, what if anything are you doing to investigate and resolve disputes?

Well, when we provide information to landlords and tenants, we point them to the part in the landlord tenant code that addresses their needs, whether it's security deposits. That helps them resolved issues on their own. But we don't step in and provide legal advice because that would create a, as mentioned in 1976, a conflict of interest.

Do you do any investigations?

Yeah, we do. So we do, for instance, during the Maui wildfires we did monitor the situation there for any violations of the Governor's ECs.

How did you monitor it?

We had, we have an investigator on Maui. So they would, we would get complaints from tenants and then we would make sure that...

Advise them on how to help themselves? That sounds like receiving complaints. That doesn't sound like investigating. So it sounds to me like, because OCP has determined that 521 is a self help law, you receive complaints but don't appear to investigate or resolve anything.

Well, the Landlord-Tenant Information Center we do operate. We do receive 5,000 calls a year. We do provide the information to the public, manly to landlords and tenants.

Okay, so that was my beginning of part of my question. You provide free information, but you guys don't appear to resolve or investigate anything.

As I mentioned, we do. No, we do, we do investigate. We do have investigators looking into violations of the landlord tenant code, but we just cannot represent people in court, as what happened in 1976. The courts...

Have you made any referrals for enforcement to any other entities as a result of investigations?

Yeah, for instance, during the Maui wildfires, we did have information for any violations of the Governor's ECs to refer them to the Attorney General's Office who were...

Can you provide a list of those referrals to the committee?

I can take a look. Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, if not, then we'll move on. Thank you, Mr. Tolentino. Next we have SB2347 relating to the Residential Landlord Tenant Code.

This measure requires the Office of Consumer Protection to periodically publish an accessible multilingual notice of tenants rights and requires a landlord to provide a tenant with copy of the notice of those rights. OCP in with comments online.

Yes. Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, my name is Dominic Jane Catarino. I'm an enforcement attorney for the Office of Consumer Protection. OCP stands on its written testimony is available for questions.

Thank you very much Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Thank you Chair for standing on our.

Thank you very much Hawaii Appleseed and support. Good morning.

Morning. Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hoy Applestein Good Morning Chair, Vice Chair. We stand on our written testimony and support. I also wanted to provide an example of why I think this Bill would be so important. I've been a renter in Honolulu until recently and on my most.

The last time I rented I had an issue with a return on my security deposit. I like to believe I'm up to date on things. I'm the Director of housing policy for local nonprofit interested in landlord tenant stuff and I went to the landlord tenant code. I went to ocp.

My landlord who is a professional landlord registered here in Honolulu withheld my security deposit past the 14 day time period. They also said that they would be withholding some things for like painting the house and stuff. They did not give me notice and I wanted to make sure I was right in this.

I'm reading the landlord tenant code. I'm calling ocp. I can confirm that I'm in my right to request a full deposit. I think I was 15 almost 20 days in at the point. I called the landlord and let them know that they were late and that I am therefore entitled to the full deposit.

They told me it wasn't within their policy. I reminded them. I read them the landlord tenant code. I think it's Section 52. I think it was 52. 52 around security deposits and told them this is legally I'm entitled to this.

They pushed back quite a bit until I finally requested that they call their legal Department in which after an hour they said you can come pick it up. I think having these rights written out and accessible and given to land tenant given to landlords to give to tenants can help avoid these mistakes. I was lucky.

I can understand and navigate the system as it is now but many other people are not. So thank you so much.

Thank you very much. That's all the in person testimony we have registered. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none.

We have written testimony and support from the Disability and Communication Access Board, the Medical Legal Partnership for Children in Hawaii, Hawaii yimby, Johnny Mae Perry and late testimony from Will Caron, Tia Pearson and Pua Ayang White Members. Any questions? I have a question for ocp.

Sure, I'm here.

Do you have a General estimate of costs for this Bill?

I don't share off the top of my head. I can look into it and get back to you.

Has OCP been asked to in this context to engage with the Office of Language Access?

Not to my knowledge. Again, I can get back to you on that. If there's different information around my office, but I have not personally heard of anything like that. Okay. Thank you.

All right. If there are no other questions, then we'll move on. Okay. Next measure is SB2771 relating to licensing.

This measure removes the barrier requiring applicants for professional or vocational licensing to be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or persons with work visas, and allows applicants to provide individual tax ID numbers in lieu of Social Security numbers if all other requirements are met. Hawaii Real Estate Commission with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members.

Thank you very much. DCCA Professional Licensing Division, with comments. Good morning. Good morning. We have you. Cindy, we can't hear you. Can you check your. Your mic, please?

Can you hear me now, sir?

Yeah, please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Morning, Chair and Vice Chair, Committee Member Cindy Matsushita of DCCA's Professional Vocational Licensing Division. We stand on our written testimony as provided, offering comments subject to your questions, if you have any.

Thank you very much. We also have written testimony in opposition from Victor Ramos. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions? Okay, moving on. Sb2806 relating to real estate.

This measure prohibits real estate brokers from listing or offering the sale or lease of residential real estate to a limited or exclusive group of prospective buyers, brokers. Or salespersons, with some exceptions, and deems the practice an unfair or deceptive trade practice, subject to penalties and grounds for discipline. Real Estate Commission in support.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you, Chair.

That's all we have. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions? Okay, we're moving on. SB 277, C7, relating to insurance.

This measure requires property insurers to disclose to the Insurance Division of the DCCA certain information regarding payment of claims for the prior year and requires the insurance division to retain and make the information publicly available. Insurance Division with comments.

Thank you, Chair. Insurance.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Insurers Council in opposition.

Yeah, we'll stand in opposition.

Thank you very much. Namik in opposition and Danny Wong in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Members, any questions? No, I do, Vice Chair.

Okay, maybe for Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs. During the last several years, I'm sure your division has been inundated with either requests, complaints or related kinds of communications, particularly from condominium associations and owners.

Does this Bill pretty much cover the kinds of areas where you think the information that is sought to be provided would address many of those complaints?

Well, Vice Chair, I think I guess the simple answer to your question would be yes. But I would caveat that with the fact that the way the Bill is drafted, property Insurance covers almost 500 different insurance companies and over 70 different products.

So if that's what you're trying to get to, the Bill will give you that and then some. That'd be like asking for your yeti to be filled with water and me shooting you with a fire hydrant. I mean, so, I mean, it would give you the information, but I think it's. You'd be getting way more than that.

And I don't know that the information that you would be asking for would be broken down at such a granular level that you'd be able to extrapolate the information that you're referring to.

Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah, that, that's very helpful.

Members, any other questions? Senator McKelvey, so, but you, you are. Able to pull aggregated data, right? Like now.

So insurance companies are currently submit data to, I mean, I guess theoretically it is through the division, but it goes directly to the naic. That data is subject to a data sharing agreement which parts of that data are published by the naic, but the rest of the data is owned by the division.

Now the caveat here is that data is protected under, well, depending upon where we're talking about either 4312 or 431 2D as confidential privilege information.

So, yes, we have data that is used for either market analysis purposes or for again, the purposes of sharing information with NAIC to see for them to see national trends and things like that. So I don't know if that answers your question.

No, it does. I mean, I just think that, you know, this has been, this battle's been going on in California for instance, in particular.

But I mean, to their point of what's going on there, I believe that there is an inherent need for consumer protection to have available aggregated, anonymized data that doesn't impact the confidentiality but yet gives consumers in a dashboard presentation or something ability to pull down claims that are paid, particularly in disaster impacted areas and such so that everybody, lawmakers, regulators and others can see what's going on.

Right.

Yeah. I mean, I would agree with you.

I think the concern or slash the issue that I would, that I would raise with regards to that is sometimes claims data, when you're just looking at, you know, so let's take the requests in the Bill, for example, is total amount of claims, claims fully paid and claims public partial paid, I think is what it limits it to.

Even if you were to extend it to claims not paid, there are a plethora of reasons why those claims are in those, I guess, statuses, for lack of a better term. And so sometimes claims may not be they're paid over time in an effort by insurance companies to prevent fraud to ensure that claims are legitimate.

Very rarely is the situation that we had in Lahaina where insurance companies kind of pay up front and then have to collect or, you know, would subrogate at the back end.

They would normally do those things sort of kind of in tandem with each other in the sense of they're not going to pay out where there is no legitimate claim there. So I think that while the division is supportive of transparency.

The concern is that the information may mislead in the sense of, I don't think that it would be necessarily the wisest position for a consumer to choose an insurance company based on who pays and who doesn't because there's so many more inner workings as to claims payment process than maybe the average consumer is aware of. Thanks, Jerry.

So, Well, I have a follow up. I mean, you're right. Fraud prevention is, I think, a pretty valid and legitimate reason why the numbers may not convey the message that consumers might take from it. The cost of ongoing litigation when policyholders challenge claims decisions is probably another one.

But we do know that there's leakage from borrowers whose claims are denied. That's perhaps a negative incentive for potentially bad practices. That data that's transparently published could potentially illuminate with the caveats, smoothing losses carrying interest from premium payments made over time that are not paid out. I mean, those are incentives to delay claims payments as well.

There's been some reporting on that. So I mean, is there a better way to make available the data that's already being published by, by the NAIC in a more reasonable format for consumers to be able to decipher? Might we be able to perhaps ask.

Or require insurers to publish it in a manner that fairly articulates the rate in which they process claims and give consumers some sort of clarity as to the rate at which some insurers do that versus others?

Yeah. So I think from the division's perspective, right. The issue that we run into is the confidentiality provisions which we have to abide by. So searching information that insurers give us, we are statutorily required to protect that information.

And you know, and I wasn't there when those laws were passed, but I believe it was there for very good reasons. And you know, I think with regards to, could an insurer, could an insurer post this information on their own website and make it public? They could.

Whether they will or whether they want to is, I suppose it would depend on the insurance company. Now, when it comes to the information that is posted and provided by the naic, the NAIC typically is not the owner of the data itself.

The data still stays and is owned by the, by the participating states, I guess, for lack of a better term, in those different data sharing agreements. And so we would still run into the issue from our end of we still own the data, but the problem is that data is still confidential.

So in the sense of we do agree to allow the NAIC to publish kind of the General, I guess, aggregated terms in certain, in certain, when you pivot the tables in certain ways, they provide certain information. So, for example, they'll provide information like claims that were open, claims that were closed and kind of.

I wouldn't, I'd have to get back to you exactly on what exactly the MCAS report that the NAIC posts, the specific metrics that they proposed and that they present. But again, I think we would run into the issue of is there a way to get that NAIC data provided to consumers in a more digestible way?

Our hands from the division side are somewhat tied just because of the agreements that we've signed in order to provide that information in the first place. So. So you're saying there's a chance. I, I mean, I'm an optimist, Senator, so I would like to think. All right, we'll recess for decision making. Thank you.

Okay. Reconvening the 9:31am Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee agenda for decision making. The first measure is SB 2436 relating to charitable solicitation. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with a defective effective date of July 12050. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator mamasau? Aye. Senator McKelvey? Yes. Senator Awa Aye. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next two measures, SB2471 and SB2829, relating to the powers of artificial persons. My recommendation is to pass these measures after we have deferred action on it for one day.

So we will reconvene, hopefully, to move out these measures on tomorrow, Wednesday, Feb. 42026 in room 229 at 9:30am we just want to make sure we're. Going to measure twice and cut once on this one. Okay. SB2495, relating to consumer protection, this one. And the next measure, SB2347, relating to the residential landlord tenant code.

We're going to defer decision making on these two measures for one week. So we will reconvene to make recommendations on these measures on Tuesday, February 10th, in this room, 229 at 9:30am so. That we have time to discuss with the Office of Consumer Protection the way forward.

SB2771, relating to licensing, after reviewing the testimony, looks like it's not going to work. So recommendation is to defer indefinitely without objection. Then we'll move on to SB2806 relating to real estate. The recommendation is to keep the conversation. Going on this measurement by passing with. Amendments defecting the effective date of the Bill to July 12050.

Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. The CPN Members present. Are there any voting with reservations or objections hearing None. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. And for the last measure, we're going to defer decision making on this measure to Tuesday, February 102026 in Conference Room 229 at 9:30am to see if. There'S a workable way forward. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Sa.