Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Aloha everybody. Welcome to the Committee on Government Operations. This is the first of our 2026 kickoff season. Exciting schedule ahead, a lot of challenges. Today's hearing is Tuesday, February 3, 2026. 3:00pm convene conference room 225.

Meeting is being stream live on YouTube and the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this during hearing due to technical difficulties. Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 3:30pm Thursday, February 5, 2026 in this room 25. Public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

In order to facilitate this hearing in a timely manner, we will be enforcing a somewhat flexible two minute limit on testimony. If you're restating what has already been receiving as a written, we'll probably hold either one minute or sooner.

But if you're engaging the Committee with more expansive thoughts and you go over the two minutes, we'll probably allow it just to keep the conversation going. To have as much of a good dialogue as possible and feel free, which we really like to stand on. Your written testimony would be very helpful to the Committee.

That being said, we'll go on to the first bill on the agenda which is Senate Bill 2064 relating to state construction project.

This establishes within dags the Office of the State Architect to be directed directed by a state architect appointed by the Governor and to have them organize, manage and oversee the design review of all state construction projects and issue design approvals for traditional design bid state construction projects. First up, we have Daggs.

Good afternoon, Chair. I'm Gordon Wood, public works administrator for DAGs. The Department stands on its written testimony and I'm here to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Next time you can just totally do it from there. You're cool. Absolutely. Exactly. But because when you come to the table, we figure you're going to pitch something.

Sure enough. Okay.

Cool. Okay, next up, we have DCAB Disability Communication Access Board. They have written in support. We have hdea. They have sent the Committee written testimony in opposition that we have late from Department of Transportation and they are in support of the measure. That's all the testimony we've received.

Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify on this measure? Yes, sir.

Oh, is this H SB2849?

No. If you want to weigh in on this one, you can. No. Okay, I'm gonna. Anybody else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next one. 23:12 Relating to government contracts.

No.

This clarifies the records Created, received, maintained, or used by private contractors performing government functions on behalf of the public agencies shall be subject to uwipa. First up, we have. Let's see. Procurement office.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, MONICO Administrator, State Procurement Office, will stand on their written testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. We got Attorney General's office.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General, Charles Lee, for the Department of Attorney General. This is written testimony

Correct. In opposition. Correct. Okay, thank you very much. We have OIP

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair. I'm Jennifer Brooks from OIP here. On behalf of Director Carlotta Amerino , I will stand on my written testimony, but. I'm happy to answer questions.

Okay, thank you very much and appreciate her testimony. Calvert Young, ERS Chair.

Calvert Young for the Employee Retirement System. You have our testimony. Stand on our testimony. While the Board of Trustees have. Okay, you got to come up now. Sorry. Well, the Board of Trustees hasn't reviewed this bill, so the agency doesn't take a position on it.

However, we have provided some comments and considerations for you to keep in mind as this bill progresses. Okay, thank you. For guests. Okay, thank you very much.

Let's see, we have dhs, Department of Human Services. Not the other one. Let's see. Written testimony with comments. We have Doug Meller from the League of Women Voters of Hawaii written in support. Ben Kreps, Public First Law Center.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. My name is Ben Krebs. I'm a staff attorney at the Public First Law Center. We're a Hawaii nonprofit dedicated to open government. We've submitted written testimony strongly in support of this measure. And this is an important.

This Bill ensures government accountability in the face of increasing outsourcing of government functions to private companies. So I have had the chance to review the concerns raised in the opposition testimony, and we've just testified on the House counterpart.

And so we're happy to, if this Bill continues to move, to speak with the opposition and try to address any of their concerns, because we do believe that the opposition concerns are based on a misunderstanding of the law. So this doesn't expand the existing law, and it also doesn't diminish any existing exemptions.

What this does is close a loophole in the existing law. So the records of contractors are already subject to the public records law if the agency has the right in a contract to get it.

We've cited a notable recent example in our written testimony where an agency contracted away that right and said, we don't want to be able to access those records. So this is an important measure to close that loophole. So we do ask that you pass this favorably.

We do think that the opposition is just based on a misunderstanding of the law. We're happy to work with them and we have submitted a recommended amendment, a friendly amendment to change the term government. Function, which is yours. I think the LWV and another agency brought that up.

I think it'll address the concern raised by OIP and just further clarify the law. So we thank you for hearing this bill. It's a good bill and we ask that you pass it up. But you are willing to engage the people who have opposed the bill on the bill, should it move forward, right? Absolutely.

And we do think that the existing law already addresses our concerns. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

Nancy Cook Lauer publisher for All Hawaii News. We have written in support, Ted Kefalus from Grassroots written in support. We have Sean McLaughlin individual written in support and Kaleo K individual with support. That's all the testimony we received on 2312. Is there anybody in the audience who wishing to testify? Seeing none Members questions?

I do for the SBO.

I don't. Are you on this bill? No, she's not on this bill.

I thought she was on this. Wait, am I in the wrong 82312. Oh, are we at 2064 still? I thought we were. 2312.

You go back if you want to ask questions.

No, no, no, no. 2312. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was you.

You provided comments on that bill.

Yeah. Comments. Yeah. On 2312. Yes. Yeah. You mentioned that the bill doesn't explicitly address the privacy or confidential information and also that there needs to be clearer procedures. That's in line with the UIPA. Yes. Do you have language like that that can clarify it in this bill?

I don't have that language right off hand, but there is some language in the 92 statute that talks about confidentiality and proprietary, which is also part of the solicitation process, that any information that is proprietary or confidential will remain so to public exposure.

And the testifier before you said that there's a difference between maybe we put an agency versus government. Would that clarify or is that not meeting what you're seeing is the requirement.

Well, typically in our contracts that come up from our office, we always have that provision in there that the records have to be kept for certain period of time. I can't speak for all agencies, but I believe that it's also part of the AG's General conditions.

There is a confidentiality provision in there, as well as a audit of records that are in there. So agencies really shouldn't be waving away their rights to those.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, seeing that none. We'll move on to the make sure. I'm tracking the next Bill, which is 2811 relating to state building projects. Establishes State Building Process Task Force to evaluate challenges, opportunities and ledge actions necessary to establish a state building permit Review office. And first up, we have dags.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you standing on the testimony. DHHL, good afternoon.

Carly Watson, Department of Hawaii Home Land, also stand.

Okay, thank you very much. And then finally, we have HCDA.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Nakamoto, HDCA, standing in support.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. That's all the written we received on 2811. Anybody in the audience or Zoom World wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions on this one? Nope. Seeing none. We will move on to the next one on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2662, Government Accountability.

This requires each purchasing agency to provide justification for hiring external consultants and goes ahead and caps the amount agencies can spend on it with other types of rules towards consultants. First up, we have DAGS. Thank you so much for your comments. We do appreciate them. SPO. All right. Thank you so much.

We appreciate you standing over there on your written testimony. DOE, Department of Education written with comments. They said somebody was going to be here in person and they are not. So. Okay. Clearly they like it. Office of the Auditor, written testimony in with comments. Next up is Calvert Young, ers.

Thank you, Chair. The Board of Trustees hasn't taken official position on this particular bill, SB2662. However, we would note that it is very similar to a bill from last session, SB 1543.

And so with that, Administration takes the position to respectfully oppose this measure, as the stated reasons in our testimony mirror those provided in last session regarding SB 1543, that it could thwart or compromise the nimbleness and speed of what the Employee Retirement System does in terms of contracting with external consultants if this measure were to move.

I'm sorry, Members, I'm just going to jump in. So if this measure were to move forward, would you be trying to seek or supportive of an exemption for the ers, given the technical nature of it and the timeliness issues you raised?

Yeah. Well, I mean, exemption excluding the ERS, I think satisfies my very limited and narrow view on this. On this bill.

So let's just figure it out here. I just ask that out loud?

Thank you. Thank you. All right, next up we have, let's see, Charles Durie, President of the ACECH.

Yes.

I'm not Charles.

You're not Charles. Janice, come on up.

But I am here, Chair and Committee Members to speak on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii. My name is Janice Masters.

You have our testimony which provides information on a study that documents that in most cases, consultants, consulting engineering firms conduct work more efficiently and at cheaper costs than can be done by public agencies when you consider the full burden of retirement and other benefits. So I won't go over my testimony, but I.

And I know that this bill could apply to a wide range of consultants. And I'm only here to talk about our industry. Consulting engineering firms in Hawaii. I would estimate maybe 95% or more of your essential infrastructure projects are currently done by consulting engineering firms.

And so the overarching question I have here is what stopped the agencies from doing this already? If it's a good idea, as in, you know, why do we need a law banning consultants? If the agencies wanted to bring all their work in house, they could do that if they had the capacity and the capability to do that.

We currently, in trying to get projects done, experience a lot of problems with agencies in getting responses from them, you know, whether that's permitting clearances or just their in house engineering staff reviewing our work.

So, you know, there's a big gap, I think, in the ability of agencies to hire people and to have the expertise needed in house. You know, it's I think a well intentioned bill because having good experience in the agencies is a good thing.

But this bill seems quite extreme in its action and I fear that it would be really detrimental to the state and the progress of essential infrastructure projects that we work on every day. 12. Hours a day on behalf of the government. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here in person and testifying. Ikaka Kincaid individual is sent written to the Committee in opposition. We have Lake from the Department of Transportation. They have sent written in in opposition. We have Lori Lum, Airlines Committee of Hawaii.

Vice Chair Senator Morawaki, we are respectfully in opposition of this bill, basically due to the impact it would have on the implementation of large capital airport projects. As a previous testifier said for DOTA in particular, they have had difficulty over the years filling vacant positions and also with retention.

So they have had to make a decision to utilize consultants to supplement their personnel. And by the way, for airports, it's a practice that is applied at most, if not all airports across the country because they have these huge capital improvement projects.

So although the costs to supplement staff are not insignificant, the benefits do typically outweigh those costs. Again because we are talking to the implementation of large capital programs. So we do ask for your consideration and we might entertain an exemption. Thank you, Chair.

Well, I find it only a little bit. We had to bill last year to bring certain things in house because the Department of Transportation wanted it. So hopefully that can be reconciled as this thing moves along. Okay, thank you, Chair. We also have, we also have Janice again as an individual. But you've given us the good. Anybody?

That's all we received on the written. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members questions?

Gordon Wood, DAGS. Yes, sir. We have had problems with consultants in the past that they consultants are managing state projects rather than state managers managing state projects. And that I think might be one of the reasons, reasons why we have this bill. And I'm just wondering this, you must be familiar with circular number 2014-14.

So this is what SBO put out as to government duties, basically. And it lists determining supplies, approving solicitation documents, negotiating cost and price, awarding contracts, approving post award contract changes and terminating contracts. If these are in rule, I guess, or circular, it's still in spo. I don't know. Bonnie.

Spo, what if that were put in law and saying that this is what we need you to do, employees need to do and not consultants, would that address some of this problem?

Because as as many of the testifiers are saying, problematic is that we don't have employees, we have 4,000 vacancies, we don't have employees, nor the kind of expertise in specialized areas that, you know, instead of capping it that we make sure that we do government functions in house.

Sure. And you know, it probably takes a. Little more analysis on our part, but. I believe that since we already operate. Under the procurement circular, that we would. Probably be supportive of or at least not objecting to that being brought into law. Right.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, seeing none. Thank you for helping. Next up, 2744, relating to due process. This requires state agencies to provide an affected person with written notice containing certain information before taking final admin action that materially and adversely affects the person's protected liberty or property interest. We have received no testimony on this measure.

So anybody in the audience wishing to jump in on this one? Seeing none. Doesn't bode well for this bill in the future. Okay, next up is 2809, relating to budget related reports. Requires the Governor to ensure that the governor's program memoranda and variance reports accurately reflect the current responsibilities of certain state programs. First up, we have Budget and Finance. They have sent written testimony with comments. And Tax Foundation. Oh, wait. Tax Foundation. Okay, go ahead. Sorry.

Aloha, Chair. Colleen Teramae with the Tax Foundation of Hawaii on behalf of our President, Tom Yamachika, who's at another hearing. The Tax Foundation has submitted written comments, and we stand on those written comments.

Okay, thank you so much for those comments. We really do appreciate them. Okay, that's all we have on this measure, 2809. Two more than the last one. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions of Tax Foundation? Nope. Okay, we'll move on to the next one, which is 2862, gubernatorial appointments.

This one would require any person appointed by the Governor to serve in the executive branch in a position that is not subject to civil service law to obtain advice and consent of the Senate under certain circumstances and criterion. First up, we have Will King, Office of the Governor, written in opposition.

We also have Martha Torney for the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. They have written in opposition. And we have late from Andy Kagemoto, individual in strong support. That's all we've received on this measure. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify who I did not call? And given that, probably nobody to ask questions for.

So we will move on to the next measure on the agenda. And this one is relating to the Legislature. This bill right here would require the LRB, in collaboration with the Department of Budget and Finance, that's Legislative Reference Bureau, to conduct a study on the cost savings and potential productivity changes of transitioning to a continuous legislative session.

All right, first up, we have Budget and Finance. Let's see. They have written comments. Legislative Reference Bureau. They too have written comments. We have Hope for Hawaii. And I want to also use this to explain just something for the Members and the public. If you submit testimony, please do not include original reports, bibliographies, or documents.

Some came in that was over 300 pages because it included. We process, as you can see by my binder, everything through paper to double check. And so that's a huge death toll on our precious trees.

So we ask that if there's important documents you want for the committee's attention that you hyperlink reference them and then we can download them on a separate PDF and review them in electronic format. So with that being said, Hope for Hawaii, are you there? Okay, they are opposed. Kris Coffield, President for Imua Alliance, written in support.

Lynne Matusow, individual who is in support. And Jackie Keefe, individual in support. That's all we have on this measure. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none. I don't think there's any questions. So we'll move on. To, relating to trees, 2336.

This will require the state or political subdivision to ensure and enforce that all arborists and other professionals managing trees or lands will impact public trees in its employ, including the contractors, to adhere to best management practices. First up we have Jack O'Neill, individual written in support. And late from Winston Welch, the Outdoor Circle.

Yes, yes. Just strong support of this bill and available for any questions.

Thank you. I'm glad you didn't leave. Got one in today.

Okay. That's all the testimony we received on 2336. Anybody else in the audience wishes to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions of the Outdoor Circle? Seeing none. Come on. Got have a little fun. Let's see. 2075, relating public procurement. This requires purchasing agencies to apply local preference to Hawaii businesses in evaluating bids or proposals.

Establishes a criteria for business to qualify for a local preference. First up, SPO. Okay, thank you very much. We also have Attorney General's Office. Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments greatly. We also have Gregory Kim for the Economic Revitalization Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. Yes. We submitted written testimony for the commission, Economic Revitalization Commission, as well as I submitted some individually. And so just wanted to highlight just a couple of things, not take too much of your time. This is an important measure. We think at the...

I'm on the commission for the city. We been looking at this for a couple years now and doing a lot of research. And the feedback we get from procurement people is they don't have any authority to offer a preference. And so if the state and the counties want to have a buy local program of their own, we're proposing a modest discount that you would offer to local vendors for purposes of their bid.

And so and you know, the written testimony includes a survey of other jurisdictions that have local preferences as well as analysis on the legal side. I'm a corporate lawyer, so, you know, I'm probably more interested in that kind of thing than most people. But I think that these kinds of laws have been challenged in the past.

And so I think we've included an analysis. Especially when the governmental agency is the purchaser, they're given much more latitude to decide how to exercise their purchasing power. And then the final point I wanted to make. And you know, we have the benefit of having read some of the comments on the House side.

And so the self certification process that's in this bill mirrors that in the section 103D-1013 HRS, which is the preference given to local accounting firms. So we just mirrored that process thinking that that would make it easier. But you know, we're open to anything that will get the job done. And finally, I'm sorry, the other thing that we noticed in testimonies is that the Procurement Office had suggested a flat 5% discount for the whole range from 0 to 10 million is the range in contracts.

And while we appreciate that and simplicity is important, we understand the concern that if we have too many different percentages, maybe it's confusing. Our idea though was that for the smaller contracts we wanted to offer a little bit more boost since they're small and it won't cost as much to offer a little bit more percentage. And then as the contracts increased up to 10 million, we brought it down.

But having heard and thought about the state's comments, one idea that I put in my testimony is that maybe we can just cut it back to two tiers, have 10% up to $5 million contracts and then maybe down to 5% for contracts between 5 and 10 million. It's just an idea. And we all stand ready to discuss any adjustments and any concerns raised. And I'm also open for any questions. But thank you very much.

Thank you for being here, Greg. We really appreciate your testimony. We got Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. They are in support. Matt Prelberg, I'm sorry, Matt Prellberg for Holomua Collective.

Matt Prellberg on behalf of Holomua Collective. We stand in strong support.

Okay, let's see. Glen Kagamida, individual in support. We have Eliza Talbot, individual in support. We have late from Department of Transportation. They're in support. We have... Oh, we just had, also from the City and County, I think from the same office as Greg, Deborah Zisman. Oh, there.

Hi. Deborah Zysman on behalf of the Office of Economic Revitalization. We'll stand on our testimony in strong support.

Are you part of the same agency? Okay. And you're the agency. Got it. Okay. But you're in support as well, right? Okay. We have Lauren Zirbel, HFIA, Food Industry Association. They are in support. Actually everybody who's written in on this bill is in support of it. So except for comments obviously from the first two testifier, AGs and SPO. And finally we also, I believe, Matt, you're also here for Title Guaranty of Hawaii.

Title Guaranty is on our board so we submit testimony on their behalf.

Got it. Got it. Okay. That's all I have on this measure. Is there anybody in the audience who I might have missed who wishes to testify? Yes.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Kiran Polk, Executive Director and CEO of the Kapolei Chamber of Commerce. We stand in strong support of this bill.

Awesome. Thank you for coming out this way. Appreciate you being here. Okay, anybody else? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Yes.

For Bonnie, SPO, please.

Sorry to make you come walking up all the time. Exercise. That's right. In your testimony, you mentioned that you don't want all the solicitations to have as preference. It's completely tedious work. First, what is the tedious work?

And two, if you can justify why you focus just on 103D, 303 and 300 and why the justification for just those two sections.

Thank you for the question. So the first question is we're trying to. The 305 method, which is the small purchase method, is supposed to be fast expedited process. And there's hundreds, if not thousands of those from very small dollar levels up to the small purchase threshold.

And so to ask the agencies and the vendors to subject them to these various amounts would be problematic. I think it would be confusing for everybody because the way the bill is written is on the bid amount. And if one vendor bids one amount, are you applying a 2%?

The next vendor bids a different amount for the same solicitation, then you're applying a different amount and it could go on and on. I think it would be very problematic. Are we applying the same preference across the board? In the IFB and the RFP process, there is a. In ifb, it's low bid.

In rfp, there's an actual evaluation process. And so there's already a structure around that. So if we could limit to those two methods of procurement, I think it would be beneficial to the state and to the agencies and to the vendors. They know which types of solicitations are going to be applied, the preferences will be applied to.

So you're saying the small bids contracts, I mean, whatever contracts that's like agencies want to get that done fast. So you can't put this preference on everything.

You'd burden them with both the vendor and the agency of trying to do this analysis. 2%, 46810%.

And again, depending on what the agency, what the bid is, you could be applying different percentages for the same solicitation because of the wide range of quotes that may come in with the IFBs and RFPs, they're more structured. Even though the prices may. The bid prices may come in a little different.

They're technically around the same amounts, unless they're outliers, which may affect the whole bid process.

And so the tiered approach of less than 5mil and then 5 to 10 and over 10, you have no preference. Is that how you see. I don't know in your testimony how you see it. I actually see it as a flat rate for everything. For. Let's see.

So we're giving preference to Hawaii firms and Hawaii firms are usually small, so It's a less than 5 of giving them 10% rather than 5%. I mean, I know I'm kind of in the weeds on this, but I.

Think we were going for just 5% across the bill, across the board. For anything under $10 million that would. Be. For everything regardless of your what kind of project it is. And then anything over 10 million there wouldn't be any preference which would. The bill already stipulates 10 million under. Right, right.

Yeah. So it's easier to administer you saying. Absolutely.

How do other states apply their bid preferences? I know because we, you and I had this conversation way back in the day because I was always a fan of bid preferences. The constitutional issues were one thing that raised its head, which it looks like it's raised again. But how do other states do bid preferences?

I mean it seems like they're able to apply them pretty cleanly.

I'm not sure. And that's something I can certainly look into to check with other states if they're doing it. I know that some of the organizations, procurement organizations like the National Institute of Government Professionals, the National Association of State Provocate Procurement Officials prefer not to have preferences because they determined that it was a deterrent to open competition.

Given our public policy goal of trying to.

Well, I think we can say reach out to Alaska who has the same kind of geographic challenges that we have. We can reach out to him and ask him if they have a preference in how they apply it.

That'd be great if you don't mind doing that. We defer decision making for reasons just like this. So if you mind doing that, that would be great. And then of course we do have to look at the constitutional issues that were raised.

But I think we can by defining the eligible entities in a certain way, we can get around that. So I'm not avoid that comment. Okay, I will check and get back. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Okay. Anything else?

If not, we will go ahead and move on to the next one on the agenda which is 2397 neighborhood board. All right. What is that? Okay. You're lucky though. I'm very lucky. Blessed are. The Eagle Fund comes from Maui. Establishes a neighborhood board for city and county Honolulu that has a vacancy.

A majority of all seats that are filled shall constitute a quorum to conduct business and a majority vote of the Members present at the board's meeting hall validate enact of the board as Part of its official business. And I actually have heard from some neighborhood board Members about this.

That being said, we are going to go ahead and we have first up we have Office of Information Practices.

Good afternoon, Chairmember, Vice chair and Members. I'm Jennifer Brooks from OIP and I will stand on our written testimony with just some comments about the impact and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you so much for being here. We appreciate you testifying on this. We have now testimony from numerous individuals. Jacob Wenick, Aria Castillo, Ross Isokana, Kyoni Shizimu, Ken Stover and we have Lake from Tom Heinrich who I believe is a Member of the neighborhood board. They are all in support. Okay, sorry about that.

We'll go ahead and I did skip two bills. We'll finish this and jump back to them. My apologies. Anybody else on this Bill for neighborhood boards wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we are then going to turn around and we're going to go back to I believe 2308 relating to procurement.

This is the contract award value that triggers a required proof of vendor compliance from 2,500 to 6,000. And because I jumped ahead on this bad boy, see SPO could have guessed that. Just.

Zero, I know. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your comments. We also have Division of Purchasing county of Kauai. They have written in support.

Yes sir, go ahead. Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair Senator Ernie Barrera, Procurement Chief for the county of Kauai. I have submitted written testimony in support of the Bill and stand on that written testimony. And I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much. We appreciate you coming in via Zoom we have state librarian. Okay. They have comments towards the measure. We have late from Department of Transportation they are in support. And we have late from the Maui Chamber of Commerce they are in support as well. That's all the testimony we received on 2308.

Again my apologize for skipping it. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we will now move on to the next one which is 2601. This is a Insurers awarded contracts are supported by sufficient appropriations by requiring that the contract amount does not exceed 10% of the amount. And we have SPO stand on your comments. Okay, thank you very much.

That's all we have on this measure. Anybody have questions of procurement office? No. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the next one which we did already and that was neighborhood boards. And so now we'll move on to public access.

This 2219 establishes a capital visitor center within the State Capitol to be maintained and operated by the Legislative Reference Bureau. And requires a joint Legislative Access Committee to review the operations of the Capitol Visitor Center. This looks familiar too. And for that one, first up we have lrb. They have submitted written comments on the measure.

That's all we received is written testimony on the measure. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none. I'll note this looks a lot like the Capital Gift Shop Bill from years past for people who've been around a while. So we'll move on to the next one which is 20 semi glasses are really dirty today.

2349 relating to public meetings. 28492849 public meetings require certain information to appear at the beginning of notices for public meetings. First up, we have Eleanor McDonald for the deaf and Blind Task Force. They have support. We have Office of Information Practices.

Good afternoon, Chair Committee. I'm Jennifer from OIP and.

Okay, thank you very much. Doug Miller, League of Women Voters of Hawaii. In support, James Gel, National Federation of the Blind. Sir.

Thank you so much. Let me just say first of all, we support this Bill, but the problem it addresses is not really just the order of things in the notices and they can be multi pages actually.

So you've got a lot of different subjects that have to appear in these notices and actually don't see a whole lot of difference in this Bill and current law. It just says that certain like the agenda has to be at the beginning. That's fine, we support that.

But what we do suggest is that the notices also be tagged with headings and so forth so that you can navigate through the notice. I use a screen reader, for example, and they're equipped with commands. You can just jump quickly from subject to subject to subject in a document if the tags are there.

If the tags aren't there, it just says no headings found.

So it'd be better, I mean if we're going to mandate an order and I'm not sure this Bill mandates an order necessarily, but if we're going to do that, we ought to also include navigation, quick navigation so you can find what you really want to find in the notice. And mahalo for your consideration.

I appreciate your testimony on the matter. We have a late from Sherry Shimizu individual. They're in strong support. And Peter Fritz jumps on via Zoom. There he is. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you for being here.

Nice to be back again. I wrote this Bill in part because I often have to look for information about how to request an accommodation and in an agenda I looked at today, it was on page nine.

Furthermore, when you read through a lot of the boilerplate, you will continue moving through and scanning through the boilerplate, and you have nothing to indicate where the topics begin. The purpose is to make this easier for people to navigate who use screen readers.

And I oftentimes use screen readers, as well as other individuals who might have mobility impairments, such as Parkinson's, benign tremors, they might be quadriplegic, who might be moving through this document, using it their eyes to move forward.

And the whole purpose is that this improves inclusibility for everyone because when the public goes to look at an agenda, they can see all of the topics that are important to them at the beginning without having to read through two or three or more pages in order to find that relevant information.

So I do ask that you do move forward with this particular Bill and that you do consider placing certain material ahead of time without all of the procedural requirements that are unnecessary. If I've decided not to attend the hearing after reading through the topics, it seems like it's a backward way to go.

I don't need to know that information that's boilerplate in the front. I need to know what it's all about. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Fritz. We appreciate it. That's all we have on the measure. Anybody else wishing to testify? zero, yes, come on up, sir.

And I apologize. I probably submitted written testimony. But we support the intent of this measure and we think it's a good idea. The intent is to make the meeting agendas more usable for everybody.

And we certainly think it's worthy of further conversation to address any kinks or concerns that may be raised by others. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members? Questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to the next one, which is 2449.

And that one defines business day, as used in part one of Chapter 92, which governs public meetings and clarifies board packets, if created, shall be made available for public inspection in the board's office during regular business hours, no later than three full business days before the public meeting. And it defines regular business hours.

Another thing that we repeatedly looked at. First up, we have Office of Information Practices.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Members, Jennifer Brooks from OIP. I will again stand on our written comments and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. We appreciate you being here in person. Doug Meller, League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Okay. They are in support. And then finally, Mr. Fritz, go ahead.

I appear before this committee on a bill related to board packets. As that traveled through to the Governor, someplace in one of the committee reports popped up a question about what were business hours, which wasn't in my original draft. And it said six hours before the close of business. But it's only in the report.

It's not stated anywhere. And so as a consequence, kind of as a housekeeping technical corrections, I looked at an old rule that was public that was from the OIP that talked about business hours and actually set forth business hours.

And it referred to a particular statute that's since been revealed, but that was the language that was used to come up with hours. And it's basically housekeeping. And it satisfies and definitively answers the question about what a business hour is. Regarding other portions of this particular bill, they're designed to try and clarify again, and that's the whole point.

This is more technical corrections and addressing particular issues than it is anything beyond that. And so I would ask that the committee consider it and look at it as something for technical correction, trying to clarify something rather than trying to make major changes.

But business hours is something that has been addressed. As far as the holidays, I don't think anybody realized that when it was enacted at an earlier time.

But if federal health - to eliminate any confusion for the agencies, the whole purpose is make it conform to what Hawaii is so somebody isn't going to make a mistake counting days and those days and not realize that a federal holiday is a holiday for purposes. It's just a housekeeping issue.

And so I would appreciate any consideration that this committee would do it. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fritz. Appreciate you being here and testifying on the measure. That's all we have on 2449. Anybody in the audience or zoom world that I might have missed? Who wishes to speak on this measure? Seeing none. Members, questions of our testifier? Seeing none. That will take us to the last bill on the agenda.

2731 Relating to lay requires and establishes benchmarks for each state Executive agency to ensure that certain percentage of lay purchased by the Executive agency consists of lay made entirely of natural objects and plant materials grown, harvested or assembled in the state and establishes Labeling requirements for lay and lay materials. 2781. 2781.

I'm sorry, my glasses are really dirty right now and this ink is smudgy. So I'm having a little hard time. So thank you. So it is 2781 relating to lay. It's all about lay. Okay. Okay. First up, we have spo. Okay. We have the New Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. They have submitted written testimony in support.

We have Richard Cohen, Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity as well. Written in support. We have. Zero, go ahead. Yes, sir. Go ahead, Richard.

I'm just here to stand on a written testimony. Chair. Vice Chair, I appreciate the opportunity. I think it was sent in written as well as electronic. And I'm here and available to answer. Questions if you would like.

Okay, thank you very much. We've also received testimony support from Kaoni. We hope we receive testimony support from Tropical Flowers Express. We've also received testimony and support for Hawaii Farm Bureau. We've also received testimony and support from the Hawaiian Council. Yes. Okay. Thank you for being here for questions. We have.

And finally, we have the Gay Agenda Collective written in support. That's all, I believe we've received on. zero, Kapolei Chamber of Commerce. Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee, Kieran Polk, CEO of the Kapolei Chamber of Commerce. I did not get written testimony on this measure. However, one of my Members did. The Gay Agenda and House of Puas.

And they are, interestingly enough, they're our first flower shop we've had in the west side for decades and we're so excited. But they work off of 15 farmers on the Waianae coast to make all of their product, including their arrangements and their leg.

And so I just see we talk about supporting local and that money coming back into our economy and what that means. And this is a perfect example of that, where we can also bring cultural significance up to the front and forefront, but also support our local small business like a House of Hawas.

So I just wanted to bring that to the attention and I thank you for bringing this measure forward. And we stand in support as a chamber to support this measure.

Okay, thank you so much. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions on this measure? None at all. Okay. I just had a quick one for Hawaiian Council super fast.

I think we talked about the idea of the labeling and that it was a concern that, you know, labeling could be a unexpected impact on businesses and such. And then the idea came about of perhaps mirroring our copy labeling law and other made in Hawaii law.

Is that something that the Bill would move forward for consideration to address the concerns that were raised?

Yes, absolutely. I think we would still remain in support. We reviewed some of SPO's comments and want to just make sure that this Bill is as strong as possible.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions? Nope. If not, that brings us to the end of this agenda. As we do with everything in this Committee. All the items that were discussed at today's hearing will be deferred for decision making time certain Thursday, February 52026. This concludes today's hearing on government operations. We are adjourned.

It's in this room, 225, on the date, and I swear to God, I'm going to tear up this hearing. Notice when I'm done.

Okay, Sure.