House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Where and about what. If you're on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, which is a problem because then people can't see us. And I want everyone to see you when you testify, so please do that.

And also, please just use your... Speak as if you're speaking in the same room where your mother or father is or your auntie that you hold in dear regard. Please don't use any profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We're here to do the work that we're all meant to do for the betterment of Hawaii citizens and its environment. Let's go ahead and get started. Thank you for joining us, Representative Garcia. First up, we have House Bill 1525, relating to elections.

This measure appropriates funds to the counties for opening more voter service centers for in person voting. It also provides funds to the Office of Elections to print and mail the Digital Voter Information Guide to all registered voters.

And it also provides funds to the Office of Elections to support a public outreach and engagement campaign to encourage greater voter participation. First up, we have Office of Elections. Mr. Nago, welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Scott Nago, Office of Elections thank you for the opportunity to testify and support this Bill. We acknowledge that there are benefits of adding funds to better inform the public. As it relates to section two of the Bill, our estimate is it would cost a little over $2 million to print and mail.

That includes the postage to all registered voters. And as it relates to Section 3 of the Bill, we estimate that an outreach campaign would cost 178,000 and that's based on what we spent on ads in the previous election. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

You want to read your second to last paragraph. Very useful.

So similarity given timelines

The you in the 2024 election you spent.

Oh so as a reference in the 2024 election we expended approximately 441,000 on advertising to include a combination of television, radio, online, out of home and newspapers from June through November to provide voter registration and voting information during the election cycle.

Thank you. That's useful everyone to know that you are already spending $441,000 in the previous election in 2024. So thank you. Thanks very much for your testimony. Please, if you can stick around, we might have some questions. That'd be great. Thanks very much.

Next we have Office of the County Clerk, County of Kauai provided comments and written testimony. Members you have that we have Honolulu Elections Division, Glenn Takahashi. Welcome. Thanks for being here, sir. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas Members of the Committee. My name is Glenn Takahashi. I'm the City Clerk for the City and County of Honolulu. We're going to stand on our written testimony, but just wanted to thank the introducers for recognizing that properly funding services is a very important part of service delivery.

Basically, if I might just get into it really quickly. While we always appreciate receiving the ability to receive state funding, and we certainly would not turning funding away, I cannot honestly and candidly assure you that just with funding alone, we'd be able to solve what some perceive as the.

The problem voter service center long lines on the final day of voting because those things are affected by things such as the manpower that we have access to political messagings that might be encouraging persons to vote only on the final day, when in fact we've been open for the previous 12 or 13.

But nonetheless, you know, thank you for introducing this measure and we'd be happy to have this conversation and stand ready to, you know, engage.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Takahashi. Next we have Moana Lutey with the Office of the County Clerk, County of Maui on zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Committee Members. I am the County Clerk for the county of Maui. And our concern, as we will echo, Mr. Takahashi, is the emphasis for additional voter service centers on election day.

We currently have two open on the island of Maui and two on our other occupied islands in our county, which is unlike some of the other counties here.

And the problem really is for us is that these voter service centers are specific for people who have not registered and want to vote on election day, have disabilities and need to come in for assistance or have made a mistake on their ballots and need to come in to be issued a new ballot, cancel an old ballot and actually vote.

To get our staff prepared for those election days, it requires months of training. We've already started bringing in employees to train them for the next election and we run short staffed.

So as it currently stands, with the number of voter service centers currently opened in our county, we're running at bare minimum, if you're going to give us funding for an election day additional voter service centers.

To be perfectly honest, that's going to be very difficult for us to find employees to train them and to have them prepared to address the voter issues I previously discussed.

I will be on here for at least another hour and then I'm sorry, we're going to have to go to Lahaina. We've got a public hearing out there this afternoon, but thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. And we'll take questions right after we finish the testimony on this measure, so we'll make sure you get out on time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have Anne Frederick, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Aria Juliet Castillo. I'm testifying on behalf of whole Aligns for Progressive Action. Strong support of HB 1525. We support this Bill because a healthy democracy depends on real access to voting and clear, reliable information.

Our voter service centers are so essential for for many residents, especially the neighbor island communities, people with disabilities, new voters, and anyone who needs in person help with something when it goes wrong with their ballot. The voter service center should be uniformly open and operating during the same time frame, including on election day.

This is about giving voters a choice and not leaving any vote left uncast and letting no confusion go on where and when we are eligible to vote.

No voter should have to drive over an hour or wait longer than an hour in line to cast their vote, even if they're just inspired to vote for the first time if their ballot was mailed in last week and not accepted for signature verification and this was really the only chance they had to correct it.

We support the statewide distribution of the Voter Information Guide. Investing in voter outreach builds trust and participation. We love the Ballot Tracks app, but it only works if voters know how to use it and actively sign up. This will strengthen access and confidence our elections.

For those reasons, we respectfully, respectfully urge you to support and we'll be happy to help support any outreach that you guys need and helps with recruiting workers for those voter service centers.

Thank you, Ms. Castillo. We've received a total of 58 testimonies on this measure, 55 in support, one in opposition, and two with comments. We have one more person who said they wanted to testify in person, Mr. James Gashel.

Does that pronounce that correctly? You did pronounce it correctly. Oh, wonderful to have you here, sir. Thank you very much. Yeah, Jim Gashell here. I'm testifying on my own as an individual, although I want to say I am Vice Chair of the Statewide Election Accessibility Needs Advisory Committee.

Our Committee is created by law in the elections law passed in 2021. It's a five Member Committee appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Senate, and we help the Office of Elections address accessibility needs of voters. And what I do want to say in regard to this Bill, we definitely support.

We didn't have a chance to have a meeting, so I'm appearing on my own. But you know, the Committee would agree on with these things. We definitely support money to, you know, open more voter service centers. This of course would provide accessible voting machines, but in addition the outreach and voter education to promote greater participation.

I just want to say I have some words and quotes in my written statement that I'm hoping you would consider adding to Section 3 of the Bill, which also includes training and outreach so that voters are aware of the accessibility options. And finally, about that. Accessibility options create a special challenge in vote by mail states.

It's not so bad if you have voting machines you can go up to. But imagine when somebody just sends you a print ballot in the mail and, and you're supposed to mark the ballot privately and independently. But if you're blind like me, okay. We need technology to address that. We have that technology.

I think Hawaii has the best, most accessible vote by mail system in the whole country. The point is people have to know about it and be able to be trained on using the accessibility options and this money would help to do that. Mahalo for your consideration.

Certainly. Thank you. And may I read for the public what Mr. Gashel has suggested. Adding the phrase quote, including awareness and training to promote accessible voting options and that language to be inserted as appropriate in Section 3 of the Bill which relates to our outreach and education efforts.

So thank you very much, Mr. Gashell, for that suggestion and thank you for your kind words about our mail and voting system. Mr. Nago, you can take that as a thumbs up. Okay. We have one person signed up to in person when they arrived here. Mr. Camron Hurt. Good to see you again, sir. Welcome. Please proceed.

Chair Members of the community, community Committee. Excuse me. Thank you guys.

That's cool. That's cool.

Thank you guys for having me back. I'm here representing Common Cause Hawaii and we are in strong support of this Bill.

Really what we looked at at the 2024 election is the amount of accessibility that we have both with mail in and with voting in person.

And what we saw after reviewing was that this is a top down fix starting here at the Legislature to allocate the money and then going to the counties to help them be able to implement the money in the way that we choose to use it.

As is, we do see a need that there needs to be more day of in person voting centers. There seems to be this narrative that you have to compete between voting in mail or voting in person. There's no competition. Give everybody the Ballot. And the Constitution says you have the right to vote on election day, period.

Full stop. Everything we've done with early voting, with mail in, with opening our voting centers early, that is brilliant. That is amazing. That speaks to the character of this country and its expansive democracy. However, it doesn't take away the right that people may. That the people do have and may want to exercise on election day.

Be it they're excited about a candidate for the first time, be it it's a loved one voting, be it it's a cultural reason, or be it it's a personal feeling of trust. All those reasons are valid and to the point of needing to fill these centers with workers. I know HAPA just said it.

I stand and speak for Common Cause and a coalition of other organizations saying if the money's allocated, we are more than willing to do the work to help find the people who will work in these centers. We're already doing election protection programs independently. We'd love to bring that in and work with the state on that.

So thank you and my comments will be submitted.

Thank you very much. Mr. Hurt, is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 1525 on Zoom? More on Zoom. One on Zoom. And who might it be?

Marlene Thom.

Marlene Thom on Zoom. Please proceed.

Can you. Okay, great. Thank you. Yes. Chair Tarnas and Vice chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 1525. Indivisible Hawaii strongly believe that we need this, this Bill to pass because of what everyone else has already stated. Aria from HAPA and Camron just now.

But in addition, because of the recent change with the USPS, not necessarily postmarking the date when a ballot is dropped, but the date when they process it, I think that causes some concern about mail in voting. So the increase in the number of voter service centers is critical.

And also as others have mentioned, the outreach to the wider population about just voter participation and, you know, civics engagement in general is essential to a functioning democracy. So I thank you for your support of this Bill and I hope it gets passed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Thom. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 1525, if not questions? Members, any questions? Representative Garcia, City Clerk, please.

Honolulu, thank you for being here. My question is currently, who determines how many voter service centers are up and running during the early voting period and on Election Day? Because currently on this island, it was just two main locations. It was Honolulu Hale and the Kapolei Hale. So who makes that determination?

So under the laws that the Legislature enacted, it gives the respective County Clerk the decision making.

So, okay, so it was your, your decision. Yes. Okay. And then from 2020, because that was the first election that went to all mail voting. Right. In 2020. So from 2020, 2022, 2024 we've seen long lines at the Kapole hale both in 2020 and 2022.

What has your team done from the in between periods from those elections to further increase access to people who choose to vote on election day?

Sure.

As far as. And I have to illustrate a certain distinction between 2020 and subsequent years. 2020 was the first year that we did vote by mail. And we're using a different voting system on the 2020 election year, we're all at voter service centers, all voters required to vote on electronic voting machines.

And that particular year we were constrained by the number of those machines. And so it was a little bit different in subsequent years where we switched to the full paper ballot at voter service centers. But so I just want to say that it's. While we can track the years, it's not a perfect comparison, if you will.

I will say that after 2020, we decided to open up what we call pop up voting sites.

And so in addition to the two main voting service centers that we do at Kapolehale and at Honolulu Hale, we also popped up a site on the Windward side at the Kanawe district Park and also in Wahiawa district Park as well. And those were open for a shorter number of days than the two main sites.

Were they open on election day?

No, they weren't. These are again. And that's why we're talking about this access to resources. Right? It's about what the resource. The resources that we have and whether we can staff some of these sites.

And the challenge to expanding the number of sites is obviously you need, you need staffing to man these sites. And we play, at least in our county, in the $20 and under job market, which makes it a very tough recruiting challenge. We use a staffing service.

And what we have been finding over the years is that the staffing service that we've engaged in has only been able to get US about roughly 70 to 75% of the numbers of workers that we need to do these sites.

And so therein lies the challenge of expanding when we don't even have the number of workers to do the sites that we are currently hosting. Now I will say that we are exploring some new things for this year, trying to utilize multiple staffing agencies. Hopefully, that will get us the types of numbers of staffing that we need.

But I do need to point out that we use workers, we use employees that within our office to do these voter service centers. Unlike the polling place model that utilize volunteers, our personnel need to go on the statewide voter registration system and to be able to perform transactions to do the servicing at the service centers.

They go through roughly eight weeks of training and of course on the job reps to be able to do these transactions.

And so it's not as simple as the previous scheme where we get revolved here we put them under a two hour training program and then say okay, well election day's, you know, coming up and, and go to it. Mind you, previous election schemes relied upon paper poll books. We're now all computerized.

Previous election schemes you had one type of ballot that you issued to voters for that specific geographic area. In this case of service centers, we have 150 different ballot styles that we need to figure out which is the right one we need to issue to the particular voter that showed up in front of us.

So those are some of the challenges that we face in terms of hosting these sites. And that come into my mind anyway as far as the decision to expand and open up more.

Chair could I follow please? So with staffing, I guess there's a question about staffing and you're saying currently your ways to get staffing because filled about 70% to 75%. So how did this happen just eight years ago in 2018?

Because in 2018 you had 260 something precincts open across the state where there was in person access, where there were staff there, there were so. So yeah.

Sorry for interrupting. Thank you. I mean my office has never done polling operations that actually fell into the state elections offices purview in 2018 that was the last polling place style election that occurred and that type of done basically using volunteers because they do not have computerized access at the individual sites.

Each individual precinct serviced a small geographic area of voters. There is a known quantity of voters that were eligible to vote in that particular precinct alone versus again the service center model that where we can take any and all comers from wherever you might live on the island. So yeah, it's.

It's a volunteer type of administrative election versus one that is done by employees and workers. And so that's the distinction again, two hours of training, eight weeks of training. Sure.

One last follow-up, Chair.

Sure, of course, go ahead.

So what's your plans for this year. I mean, I know the, this Bill is here from 2022 to 2024. Because in, I do recall in 2022, Kapolejale, that line was wrong. It was an hour's wait. 2024, it was even worse. Some people were in line for seven hours, seven hours.

And there are people who were actually wanting to go vote and saw the line and said, screw this, I'm just not going to vote. And so how many people were disenfranchised for not being able to vote? So the question is from 2022 to 2024, knowing that very long lines, what did your team do in, in 2024 to address that.

In 2024, again, you may have seen it this last election, right? We utilize more of the grounds within Kapolei Hale and to be able to snake our lines around. We knew that we were going to have lines obviously, right. But we are still constrained by the size of the room at Kapolei Hale.

You guys have been there. It's conference room A, B and C that we turn into one large operation there. We go at Kapolei Hale and Hong hale at roughly 200 to 250 voters per hour is what we can push through and service at each of these sites.

Admittedly, those things can be affected by a number of factors. In this year, for example, we are expecting that our charter commission will produce a multi page ballot that will increase the vote time. How much that will affect our ability to put people through the line remains to be seen.

But again, you know, we cannot host what we cannot staff. And so that's where I think some of the things we did in 2024 included some messaging that, hey, if you, if you're planning on voting in person, you know, you might want to think about whether the last day is the day that you want to come.

You come the day before the last day. We had a 10 minute wait at our site.

But regardless, that is their right to vote on election day. I get it. It might be your preference to have them go vote early or vote by mail. But the preferences are besides the point. They have a right to go walk in person on election day.

And our resources, paid for by taxpayer dollars should give ample time and resource to allow them to cast that, that, that vote in person.

And we let every person who stood in our line cast that vote. We will stay up until three in the morning if that's what it takes. So that's why I mentioned, you know, there are certain times that are more preferable to to be voting, obviously, don't come on the last day.

It's in and out in 10 minutes. I mean, it's that easy. But we understand that there are people that engage late and we're always trying to make our processes better for voters. But like I said, even with funding, I can't promise a 10-minute wait.

Especially if four or 500 people show up at 6 pm, there's no way that that's gonna occur in 10 minutes. I just got to be very real and candid about that.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Garcia. I'm going to go to Representative Bellati.

I have a question for Mr. Takahashi and then another.

Yes, please go ahead.

So, you know, this model of the polling center model versus the voter service center model, is there not something in between?

And I guess one of the things I'm asking is the person who you're training for eight weeks of training, does this become a permanent city employee or is it a temporary.

This is a seasonal employee that's with us for roughly five months.

Okay. Is there not something in between? Because I once worked in the polling center model and volunteered and there's a lot of very capable people who you could train up to run voting service centers. That doesn't need to be employed for five months. I don't, you know, or.

And maybe we can have some disagreement, but I feel like there's some there. There has to be a model of somewhere in between where we can meet our staffing challenges, get them trained and have more voting. Voting centers, because there is such a huge demand.

Okay, well, let me kind of throw out some numbers, if you will. In the 2024 election, there are 344,000. There are about 346,000 persons that were serviced by my office. Of that, if my Math is correct, 322,000 voted by mail.

There were 14,000 that voted early at our service centers prior to the last day, and about another 8,000 on the final day of voting. The 8,000 represented about 2% of the entire numbers of voters that we serviced.

One of the things that we as county clerks have to be cognizant of is that when the Legislature passed Act 136 in 2019, it created a vote by mail election scheme.

And in a pure vote by mail election scheme, where the intention was that the voters be serviced by mail with a limited number of service centers, right now, people have options to go to these service centers, unlike a model like, say, employed in Colorado and in California, where they have what they call a voter choice election scheme model where they mail every voter ballot but also host numerous sites for in person servicing.

Now that's certainly possible too. It's very, very costly. In fact, in these jurisdictions I would venture to say that the counties are probably dedicating 80% of their budgets to servicing maybe 10 to 15% of their voters. And so again, that's, those are the types of things that are available.

But what we were told in terms of by the Legislature and the intent is that they wanted a vote by mail election scheme. That being said, the vote by mail election schemes, Washington, Oregon are also some of the other pure types of vote by mail jurisdictions.

They too face long lines on final days that they are conducting in person servicing. And if you haven't seen it, if you look in Portland at Multnomah County, their county election office encompasses the entire city block. Their last day lines wrap around the city block multiple times.

If you look at say King County in Washington, they use Lumen Field for their voter service center on the final day. And you know, it is a stadium. So you can imagine the types of lines that they see over there. So you know, presidential election years, final day lines, it's present in all jurisdictions as well.

That's just the kind of the reality that we live with. And again, you know, we do our best to try to, you know, address and deal with the crowds of people, but sometimes numbers are not necessarily the answer to, to doing that. Thank you.

Vice Chair question for Moana Ludi county of Maui.

Would you like to stay here? No, you can have a seat. Thank you very much. We'll go to Maui.

Aloha. Thank you for hanging out on there with us.

So kind of hearing the conversation and considering the uniqueness of Maui being a multi island jurisdiction and I hear your concerns as well, but do you think that perhaps maybe we won't go full blown back to like all of the voter service centers or polling centers that we had, but adding a few, one or two in the more, you know, the outer areas might be helpful and doable.

Thank you for the question. So currently what we do is our most remote area, as I'm sure you know, is Hana.

So we go out to Hana probably about, not the week of the primary or General, but the week before that on a Saturday and we open up for people in Hana that need assistance, have made a mistake on their ballot, need to register and vote, etc.

And I'll tell you that the turnout in the last two elections have been about seven to eight people on each of those, we call them pop ups, but they're voter service centers. So in terms of the expense for that, it costs us somewhere around 2 to $300,000 to do that or thereabouts for the equipment and so forth.

It's very expensive, but we do it to try and help them. Because of the Lahaina wildfires and so forth and the displacement of so many of our residents, we opened Lahaina and had that open for the majority of the voting series last election. Not the entire 10 days in advance, but probably about five.

And that was well attended. Not as crowded, though, as Wailuku. And then, of course, we have one on Molokai and one on Lanai. For Molokai and Lanai, I think that those are well staffed as is.

But as Mr. Takahashi has detailed for you, for the most part here in Wailuku and Lahaina, we would average in Wailuku maybe some 75 to 80 people a day. In Lahaina, it was about 30 per day leading up to each of the elections. Then on election day, it's significantly more.

And so, like Mr. Takahashi and also the Office of Election, there's a lot of information that we try to get out there. We're highly present on social media, just telling people, hey, if you come now, you have no wait at all. At most it's going to be five to 10 minutes.

But if you wait till election day, we'll put tents up outside to try and make you as comfortable as possible, but you're going to have a wait.

So in short answer to your question, I don't know how we would be able to staff additional voter service centers, especially on election election day, because of the difficulty we have in hiring people. And I appreciate everyone who's offered to try and find us employees and.

But I will tell you that we've been trying to search now for a month, and we've got two employment agencies. We've gotten three people in. So please send them my way. If you've got people, we'll take them. Start now.

Thank you. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. Other questions, Members, Representative Shimizu.

For the last testifier? Did she say that project? Did she. Did you say that in Hana, you. Got seven to eight people, correct?

No, seven to, seven people.

Yeah, seven people showed up. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Other questions, Members, I do have a question to follow up, so thank you for your suggestion, Ms. Lutey, that if people are interested in working, that they contact you. If may I ask the folks from Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action and the folks from Common Cause, please tell your members to sign up.

And, and Mr. Takahashi, how would you advise those interested in working for you as a, what you call it, a seasonal employee? What should they do to, to apply for the job?

Yeah. Well, we have not yet awarded our contract to the staffing agency, but certainly that would be where we would direct any persons that are interested to go to a staffing agency.

So once you decide what the contract is.

Yes.

Once we know who is your vendor, then.

Then we could refer there. But as of right now, there's no vendor selected. That's coming up in the next.

Okay. But I could ask those individuals who represented the organizations that would like to try to drum up some candidates for you to contact your office in a short while to find out.

It's at least a month and a half out for.

Okay, so in six weeks maybe they can contact your office.

And again, it's a full time job. So it's.

I understand. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. No, the way you described it was a seasonal employee. That's correct. And it's a five month tenure.

Yes. You know, and again, we stagger people as we need them. We obviously need more people in a general election than we would say in a primary election. That's when we experience the load.

Yep. Okay, back to you, Vice Chair, and then over to you.

Just a quick follow up. What is, do you know what the average pay is for?

Like I said, we're in this 20 and under some, you know, market that might be part of the problem. That is perhaps the, a good part of the problem problem that we face. Right. And so some of that is solved by funding.

But you know, we're, we're coming up against, we're competing against like agencies like say the TSA in Hawaii. They're the highest paid. They get like $28 an hour or something like that. Right.

You know, and, and they're, they do an operation that, you know, relies heavily on technology and, and, and has to push a lot of people through a line in a short amount of time.

So funding is only like increasing the funding to pay for the positions and the salaries is only a part of the problem.

That is part of it. I mean, you know, the amount that are paid for seasonal employees can, cannot be more than the full time civil servants that we also employ in our office as well.

So those are the things that are kind of pushing from multiple ends that really makes this unemployment challenge, if you will, for us. Those are the realities and things that we work under.

You know, the question comes up to, if we're operating at 70% of what we need, would we rather be doing it, you know, 70% of what we need at two sites or at 50% of what we need at six? You know, that that's the kind of decisions we get faced with and what will happen. Right.

Any one of those six could be going to midnight as well. So we haven't really gotten. Solve the problem, if you will. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Back to you, Representative Belatti.

If there was more funding infused into your contracts for the staff, could you flex to potentially open up more voting service centers? So as I hear you talk about this contract, we're saying five months. So you're picking up a person up in July, August, September, October, November, you have a month of training.

And then for all of that, that's the term where they're employed. So say that we were to infuse money into your budget to provide for more staffing, could you then conceivably open more service centers on this island?

Yeah. Here's the thing. When we notice or put out the election proclamation, that's done in May. The month of May is when it gets published. So we're laying out, this is what the scheme is going to look like for the rest of the year.

If I come out and say we're going to do six sites, seven sites, and the staffing doesn't materialize, we're in for a world of hurt.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking if the funding was supplied, could you flex? And potentially because you're saying now your announcement would be out in May, it's now February, you would have March, April, May, and if we were to provide more funding and then you could flex and then if.

And not promise to open up more, but then when you do the hiring and you see a surge, you may see a surge in staffing, then could you open up more centers?

I mean, again, it's all predicated on putting the bodies in chairs, if you will. And we just. Look, we're at a right now I think I saw something. We're at a 2.5% unemployment rate or something like that. Those are some of the factors that come into play. Right.

People are staying out of the workforce, unemployment is very low. We're competing against many different types of industries that are also looking for people as well.

Just one last follow up question.

Okay, one last question.

So I guess I'm hearing a lot of no's. I'm hearing a lot of excuses. But I'm saying if provided the funds and you could do it, would you be, would you at least try?

I mean we certainly could. The question is, you know, will it materialize? And I can't, I can't go, oh well, it's now October. We don't have the staffing. I'm going to shut down three, you know, that, that we can't do that. So we're going to limp along. That'sthe reality. Okay, thank you.

Did you want to ask more questions? Vice Chair.

Yeah, yeah. One more question. I want to frame it a little bit differently. What do we need to give you in order to open even just like one or two additional centers?

I wish I could say that funding was the answer. The, the one thing that you could throw at us and boom, everything goes away. But I'll be very candid.

I don't think that's the, the solution, if you will, because we're up against a lot of other factors that, that, that will determine whether we'll be able to pull off and even host these sites. I can't make lines go away. I mean that is the, the bottom line, you know.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, last question please. Go ahead. Rep Cochran.

Yeah, so I've been hearing. People, I guess just sort of untrustworthy of the election, you know, the computerized version versus just hand paper collected ballots in your good old fashioned polling places where volunteers show up. So is that possible to have.

If I could interrupt. That's not the topic of the Bill. So could you ask your question on the Bill? It's a valid question, but it's just not even contemplated in the Bill. Could you try to reframe it to be something about the Bill?

So I think maybe then for Mr. Nago, I was reading your, your test. Sorry. For your testimony in reference to the total amount of money that you. Is this statewide all counties. It's costing 2,074,000 statewide for the printing and mailing. Yes, that's.

It's statewide. Office of Elections were statewide. The counties are responsible for their own individual counties.

This is a funding that counties get from you.

No, this would be the funding to effect Section 2, which would be the border guide to print and mail to all register voters.

And that includes training of the people too, or.

No, it's a different topic. That's a different section of the Bill.

Oh okay.

Yeah. Section two of the Bill is provide funds Office of Elections to print and mail the digital voter information guide to all registered voters. And that's what Mr. Nago has said would cost 2.074 million.

Has been costing us.

No, they have not been doing this. We only do a digital voter guide now. So this Bill is about providing funding to print it and mail it. So that's the additional two plus million.

Okay. I thought I already got it mailed to me.

Nope, nope. You got it digital.

You can go to the library and look at it.

But yes, they do provide it to. Yeah, thank you. You're right. It is at each library. Any other questions, Members?

Question of a different testifier.

Okay, this is lively discussion so let's go ahead and finish up.

This is so important. Mr. Hurt, please. So you hearing this discussion about us struggling to get workers staffing as an issue, do you see this as a similar problem or is there ways that we can address the staffing issue?

If I see it as a similar problem, I'm not going to disrespect their professional judgment if they say that's the problem that they see right now. What I would say in answer to their problem is that there are a huge group of high school seniors that will be taking a gap year coming up.

There are poli Sci departments within UH and Chaminade that my organization partners with right now who have people who are going into this field who are begging for opportunities. You have those people who are going to be graduating some our local kama ina. So they're going to be staying at home looking for that first start job.

While they're looking for that, would this not be a great way to usher them in? I think. And also just from what I'm hearing, this idea that we need a staffing agency also may be the problem.

I don't know if this is a local staffing agency or if it's outsourced, but for me and my partner organizations we go straight to the source. So we're going straight to you guys websites looking for this and awaiting the announcements. So we would love to tell our Members where to go.

But if I'm a professional in this arena and this seems a bit tedious for me to get that information, then I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a young 18 year old or kupuna just retired but you know, still wanting to do something so they can be around how this could be frustrating or hard to navigate.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks very much. Thank you Members for your questions. I appreciate it. One last item. Just as food for thought, everyone in the whole state was waiting for the final polls, the polling stations to close, for all the line to finish before the results were released.

Because it's in the law, the any tabulation of the number of votes cast for a candidate or question appearing on the ballot, including counting center printout or other disclosure, shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed to the public until after the closing hour of voting or after the last person in line at a voter service center desiring to vote at the closing hour of voting has voted as provided in Section 11 to 31, whichever is later.

That's why we had to wait so long, because it's in the statute saying, we can't release the results. They remain confidential until then. This Bill does not contemplate changing that. But that's something that was brought to my attention saying, well, if that's the problem you want to solve, this is another thing to consider.

This Bill does not consider that, but I just want to draw that to your attention that that's in the statute. Okay, I think that's it. We've exhausted the questions on this Bill. Thank you very much. And thank you very much to the to Moana Lute with office of county Clerk county Maui.

I think we got you out on time so you can head out to your next meeting. Thank you to all the testifiers on 1525. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1885, relating to standards of conduct.

This measure prohibits a state agency from entering into any contract to procure or dispose of goods or services or for construction with any business that is owned or operated or in which a controlling interest is held by a relative or household member of a director or a deputy director of a principal state department. First up, we have Mr. Robert Harris, Hawaii State Ethics Commission. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Harris. On behalf of Hawaii State Ethics Commission, I'd like to offer support on this bill. My commission has not yet had the opportunity to review this, but staff have submitted support. And this I presume, based on the past policy of the commission, that they would be in support of this as well.

We do believe this measure would help reduce the risk and appearance of favoritism in state contracting. However, the ethics code is grounded in individual responsibility, and so we did make a proposed amendment. However, upon reflection, we'd like to offer different language. And I have copies of that to circulate, if you don't mind, Chair.

That'd be fine. You could give it to Charlotte and she'll pass it around. Thank you.

Specifically, the language that is proposed would be a new subsection C. The director or acting director of a principal state department and any deputy director of the department shall be responsible for ensuring that all contracts entered into by the department comply with the section. And then, D, any violation of the section shall be assessed against the director, acting director, or deputy director of the department at the time the violation occurred.

The intent is essentially to ensure that there is someone responsible for ensuring that the statute is adhered to. Be available for any questions. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We have two other testifiers in support. Mr. Ted Kefalas from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, and from Ross Isokane, an individual. Is there anyone else here or on Zoom wishing to testify on House Bill 1885? No? Nobody on Zoom. Thank you. There being no further questions, Members, any questions for our testifiers?

I have a quick question for Mr. Harris. I had gotten some comments from Members as they read the bill about the word relative. Do you have a definition of relative that you use? It says relative or household member of a director or deputy director.

I believe that this language does come from the nepotism statute that this Legislature passed approximately two years ago. And the definition of relative is that the language appears to be the same. And it's based on, I think, two degrees of consanguinity, which is actually spelled out. And then they also adopted from DHRD the definition of custom. So it is language that we're familiar with and have had some experience in interpreting.

Okay. Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair's question. How would the information be determined? What is the process of getting that information?

Just so make sure I understand. So how would a department know if a contract is being proposed to someone that might violate this proposed bill? Just to be clear, this is not our bill. We are testifying in support of it. Just to be clear.

Well, I think part of the reason why we are suggesting putting responsibility on the director and deputy director is that they're the ones who would be related, would know their household members, would know the relatives, and so there would be the ones in the best position to have a standing list for the department of potential conflicts, potential violations, and would be the most, you know, point people within the department to be able to ensure that there would be compliance. That's why we're kind of focused specifically on those individuals.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Just one more question, Mr. Harris. Is this something that we need to get the Procurement Code, Procurement Office involved with?

I don't want to throw someone under their bus, but I do believe that they are paying attention. Certainly we'd be interested in having their input. The ethics code and the procurement code already does have overlaps, and I hope we're able to work cooperatively.

The ethics code already does apply to state contracts, and there's a requirement within the constitution of the ethics code stating that the contracts will be focused within the ethics code. So there is some overlap already, but happy to get their input.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate that. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 1521 relating to government contracts. This measure clarifies that records created, received, maintained, or used by private contractors performing government functions on behalf of public agencies shall be subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act.

First up, we have Attorney General on zoom. Jung Min Lee, Deputy Attorney General not present. Members, I urge you to take a look at testimony from the Attorney General in opposition. Yeah. So please take a look at that. Next up, Office of Information Practices, Director Amarino or her representative.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair. I'm Jennifer Brooks from the Office of Information Practices. Carlotta unfortunately couldn't make it today, so OIP is not. We're offering comments on this bill. It's not an OIP Bill. We don't have a fundamental problem with it. The Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA, does already encompass records that are administratively maintained by an agency.

So that can apply to records of a government contractor where the contractor is doing something for the agency on behalf of the agency, and the agency has, for instance, a contractual right to review the records related to the performance of the contract.

You do see that term sometimes not universally, as this bill would require, but it's not an unheard of concept. And of course, being subject to the UIPA would mean also subject to the UIPA's exceptions to disclosure, which apply for all government records.

So the one thing that OIP did have a concern about was the term government function, just because that is also used in One of the UIPA's exceptions, which is for records whose disclosure would frustrate a legitimate government function.

And because this bill would add a definition of government function that would impact the existing exception, which I don't think was the intent, and, you know, could. Could change, could basically narrow the existing exception. So we suggested replacing the term with an agency function instead. So I am happy to answer any questions you might have on this.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, I'd like to hear from Office of Youth zero, we have a testimony, written testimony from Office of Youth Services with comments. Next, we have a testimony from the State Procurement Office. Welcome. Please introduce yourself.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Dana Omia. I'm the Assistant Administrator for the State Procurement Office. We stand on our written testimony.

This is your first time before our Committee. I don't let people stand on their testimony.

Okay.

So if you could please summarize the main points of your testimony. And it's not just for me.

Okay.

It's for everyone in TV land that is listening to you.

Great. Okay, so you just provided comments. To ensure compliance with the uipa, the implementation of clear procedures is necessary to identify, label and protect proprietary or confidential information on records created, received or used during the performance of outsourced governmental functions.

Implications include additional administrative resources to ensure UIPA compliance for outsourced functions and potential disclosure liability for contractors or agencies that fail to protect sensitive information.

Thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Next, we have written testimony from the Department of Human Services. Then we have testimony from Calbert Young. Welcome, sir. You're a busy guy. Thanks for joining us.

Not that busy.

Not as busy. I was good. Different job now.

So you have a different sort of busyness? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Madam Vice Chair. Members, so you have my testimony. The Board of Trustees for the Employee Retirement System has not reviewed or taken a position on this bill. However, in my testimony, I have outlined some areas of concern for your mindful consideration as this bill progresses.

Primarily around the confidentiality and proprietary informations that could be exposed in the relation to the Employee Retirement System. We have a lot of private contractors that work for State of Hawaii employers, public employers, in order in order to effectuate the pension and investments.

And so we want to make sure that considerations around the existing proprietary and confidential information.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next person who said they want to testify is Venus Rosette Medeiros with Halequipa on Zoom. Not present. Members, please refer to her testimony in opposition.

She's got concerns about additional costs to their organization, which is a community based Nonprofit organization over 55 years providing critical services to vulnerable youth and families in the state of Hawaii. And they're saying. She's saying this bill places an unreasonable and unintended burden on nonprofit contractors that will ultimately undermine service delivery and strain already limited resources.

Next up, we have Mr. Ben Kreps, public First Law Center.

Sir, please proceed. Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Ben Kreps. I'm with the Public First Law Center. We're a nonprofit dedicated to open government in Hawaii. So we've submitted written testimony and strong support of this bill.

This bill ensures government accountability in the face of an increasing trend of government agencies to outsource government functions to private contractors. And we heard a little bit of that today with the County Office of Elections and that they do some outsourcing for hiring. So that's an increasing trend that we're seeing. And this is an important accountability measure.

I have had the opportunity to review some of the concerns raised in opposition testimony. And respectfully, I do think it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of existing law. So under existing law, records that are maintained, and I use that in quotes because it's a term of art.

Records that are maintained by an agency are subject to the public records law. And OIP and the courts have interpreted maintained to include records that an agency has a contractual right to get to. So under existing law, it's already subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act.

This bill does not expand the existing law, and it also doesn't diminish any of the existing exemptions. So the existing exemptions address the concerns raised by ERS and also by the Procurement Code about proprietary information or information protected by privacy. What this bill does and why it's needed is it closes a loophole.

And so it prohibits agencies from circumventing the law by contract. And in our written testimony, we've highlighted a recent notable exception to that. And we like to refer to this as the Witt Kiefer loophole. And that's where, again, an agency contracts away its right to get records. So this is a good bill. It closes that loophole.

We have suggested a friendly amendment to address the concerns raised by oip, and our recommendation is consistent with theirs to change the term government function to agency function. And last, I would just reiterate that this doesn't impose any additional or new burdens on contractors. It's already a part of the existing law. It just closes a loop. Cool.

I'm happy to answer any questions. I do have to run down to GBO to testify on the same bill. But we very much appreciate you, Chair, for. For hearing this bill, and we ask that you pass it favorably. Thank you. Thank you.

We. That's all that has said they were going to testify. In total, we had four in support, three in opposition, five with comments. Let me open it up to questions. Members, Any questions, Chair?

Was. Was Holly Keeper online or.

No, they did not show up. They were supposed to be on Zoom, but. Right. They're not there not present. Not present. Any other questions? If not, I think we'll move on to the next measure. Ben.

I guess before you go, Ben, though, let me just mention that I would ask you whatever we decide to do with this bill because it's moving in. The Senate as well. If you could please spend some time with DHS, Office of Youth Services, ERS, Alliquipa, and just try to educate them about. Because you helped craft this measure.

So it'd be great if you could helps help educate them so we can all be on the same page. Yeah, I appreciate that. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 1519, relating to campaign contributions.

This measure requires disclosure of the names of compensated officers and their immediate family members of state and county contractors and grantees with contracts or grants exceeding $250,000. It prohibits the compensated officers of state or county contractors and their immediate family members from making or soliciting certain campaign contributions for the duration of the contract exceeding $250,000.

So the contract has to exceed 250,000. It prohibits state or county grantees, including compensated officers and their immediate family members from making or soliciting certain contributions for duration of the grant exceeding $250,000. Okay. It also requires unlawful contributions to be returned to the contributor or escheat to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund.

SG means it's just sent over to the fund itself. Okay, first up, we have State Procurement Office. Welcome back up.

Thank you.

Summarize your testimony, please.

Okay, we just had. We just provided comments and we sent a written testimony. But we also wanted to add a revision to our testimony to replace the language establishing the threshold amount of 250,000 and replace it with a small purchase threshold. This will ensure that this Bill aligns with any updates to the small purchase threshold.

Say the word. The small what?

Purchase threshold.

Small purchase threshold. What's that?

The small purchase threshold is currently $100,000 for goods and services and $250,000 for construction services. So it follows a more streamlined processes. Because of the low dollar threshold, it allows more streamlined processing, a larger procurement with a larger dollar value.

Okay, thank you. Any other highlights from your testimony you want to mention?

No.

Okay. Okay, thanks very much. Next we have Campaign Spending Commission. Welcome. Please introduce yourself. I think folks here need to meet you.

Yes. Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Kristie Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. We support this Bill and just had a few comments as it relates to sort of the restrictions. We do appreciate sort of the narrowing of the scope, which was we were working on last session.

But one of the narrowing is limiting it to branches of government. The Commission is concerned that limiting the ban to branches of government may not capture all possibilities of corruption and recommends removing that. The second is compensated officers.

The Commission is concerned about that because there are situations where uncompensated officers, primarily of corporations, do have influence over some of the legislation that may go on or contracts that are available. So that's something that we would like this Committee to consider. The next one is dealing with immediate family member.

The Bill defines immediate family member to include the person, spouse or reciprocal beneficiary, and any dependent children. The commission does support that definition, but would like to see it expanded to also include any dependent, like adult dependents that are living maybe in the household and spouses of those adult and reciprocal beneficiaries of those dependent children.

And then the next one is, I guess there's restrictions in here that it doesn't apply to ballot issues. The commission is concerned that there may be some large. Some ballot issues that impact large contracts, for instance, like a stadium, may be a ballot issue. And so there may be a potential for influence on that.

So would like some consideration from the commission to take a look at that concern. And then finally, we do appreciate the password protected section of the website. For our website, we are working with our vendor as we build out our electronic filing system to determine what it would cost to include that in there.

But I am available for questions.

Thank you very much. And just so everyone knows, Tony Valdemaro has retired.

Retired, yes. Effective December 1st.

And, and so that's. We're very blessed to have Kristie here. So welcome aboard.

Nice to meet him.

Thank you. Okay, next person said they wish to testify is Marlene Thom on Zoom. Please proceed. Marlene Thom on Zoom.

Yes.

Please proceed. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair and Members. I'm thankful for this opportunity to testify on behalf of indivisible Hawaii in strong support of HB 1519.

We believe that this bill closes a loophole that ensures public funds are used for their intended purposes and that, you know, state and county contractors and grantees and their families are not trying to use their influence to sway political campaigns for too long.

I think we think that these loopholes have eroded people's trust in elections and we sort of have to stop these sort of, you know, wink and nod transactions. So this Bill will make our elections more fair and transparent. And we hope this Committee will pass this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Ms. Thom. Next person said they wish to testify as Greg Masakian on zoom not present. Okay. We have received a total of 54 testimonies in support, none in opposition, and two with comments. Are there any questions, Members?

Representative, I have a question for procurement. Can you restate what you added as far as the small procurement?

The small purchase threshold, we wanted to replace that, the dollar with the language small purchase threshold.

So the effect of that, If I may, Mr. Shimizu, it would be basically lowering. Right now in the Bill, it's 250,000. And the small purchase threshold is for.

Goods and services, it's $100,000. And for construction, it's 2, $250,000.

So it would change the thresholds, the dollar amounts. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other questions? Members, a question for state procurement. In your testimony, you suggest that there should be, we should add clear penalties for non compliance, such as fines and contract suspension.

Could you provide us, not now, but could you provide my office afterward, like tonight or tomorrow morning or something?

Some language for that will do.

Because you mentioned it as suggested, but you didn't give me language.

Okay.

You gave me some suggested language for other things, which is great, but if you can give me that one, that would be great.

Okay.

Yeah. And in fact, if you could just go through your testimony and whatever you didn't send me language on if you could provide that, that would just make sure that I'm accurately refer reflecting your recommendation.

Okay. We'll do. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Any other questions, Members? I'm sorry, I have one more question. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry.

No, you're getting your exercise.

I am getting my exercise. My steps in.

You know, we also are hearing HB 2052. How would you compare the two bills? And which one would you favor?

How about let's. Let's get to 2052 and then we can talk about that. Okay.

Fair enough. Chair? Yeah. Thank you.

Is that okay? Let's do that. That's great. Sure. So let's do that. That's it. Okay. Any other questions on this? If not, let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2050, relating to partial public financing of elections. This measure increases the expenditure limit and the amount of partial public campaign financing available for all elective offices.

It adjusts the minimum amount of qualifying contributions certain candidates must receive to participate in the program and increases the matching fund payments for excess qualifying contributions and appropriates funds for the program. First up, we have campaign Spending Commission. Welcome back, Ms. Chang.

Good afternoon Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Christy Chang from Campaign Spending Commission. The Campaign Spending Commission supports this bill. The partial public financing program is the state is mandated by state constitution institution and right now we currently have 2.4 million, roughly $2.4 million in our special plan.

That is only enough to fund one election. So the primary there would not be sufficient funds in there to pay for the General election. That's assuming that every everybody wants to participate in the program.

So this bill is aiming to increase that funding and sort of doing an adjustment of expenditure limit and increasing the amounts that are available for candidates. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. We've received written testimony from the League of Women Voters of Hawaii and Imua Alliance. The next person who said they wish to testify is Hawaii alliance for progressive action. Is Ms. Castillo on Zoom? Yes. Please proceed.

Aloha Aria. Juliet Castillo testifying on behalf of Hawaii Lines for Progressive Action in strong support of HB 2050. We support this bill because it helps public partial public financing a realistic and competitive option and will hopefully encourage more candidates to use the program. When they rely on public support instead of private donors.

It changes who feels, how they're able to run and how campaigns are run and who is actually qualified to run. Strengthening the match 2 to 1 makes small local donations count more. And raising the expenditure limit is so necessary to reflect the modern cost of running a campaign.

This bill helps level the playing field, strengthens voters trust and make our elections more competitive and representative. It's better for democracy when candidates spend more time engaging with the communities instead of chasing big money. Let's get closer to elections powered by the people, not wealth. For this reasons we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yes, thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have common cause. Mr. Hero, welcome back.

We always like to hear from you, sir, please proceed. No, this is our year. This is our year. Every year we get a little bit closer. Last year we got a little bit of the increase for the CSC. This year we're going to increase partial public. I can feel it in my bones.

For all the reasons that Ms. Castillo laid out and more. I think majority though is what grounding ourselves in the reality of the moment where we're at and the financial headwinds. We know that before we've seen advocates argue for a fully comprehensive campaign financing system.

And looking at where we are right now, what is realistic, what we can do, what would be a step forward in making this competitive. This really is a Solid compromise.

It is a way of putting in a quarter of the money recently being asked, but also increasing the efficacy of the this program and more people being able to use it while also giving our rural dollars a little bit more bang for their buck as well. So for these reasons and more, we're going to support this bill.

Thank you.

I love your enthusiasm.

Thank you.

That's all I got. That's it. That's it. I'm with you. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? That's all I, we, oh, no, I do have one. No, that's it. That's all I have. Is there. So out of the. There are 29 in support, 0 in opposition, 0 with comments on this measure.

Anyone else wishing to testify on Zoom or in person if not. Questions, Members? Yes, Representative Garcia, thank you.

Chair for campaign spending, please. Thanks for being here. My question is, in an average election cycle, how many candidates use the public financing option? Let me see if I have that.

I'm not sure if I printed that out. That information, I do believe it's on our website. So what I can do is I can provide that to you and email it to you. But I didn't print it out. I printed out something. I apologize, but I will send it to you.

But would you say a lot?

The number has been decreasing over time from the start of the program. And I think it's partially related to the amount of money that's available. And I think that's why the commission wants to increase more funding so that it becomes a more viable option for new candidates, especially and for elected officials.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, I've heard the same thing. Low support amounts result in fewer people. There are some counties where the calculation is slightly different because they're at large. So county council Members in Maui, I think, actually have a higher amount because it's an at large.

So it all has to do with the number of voters in that district. So that's why we need to increase it. Greg Masakian said he'd be on Zoom, but I think he's not present.

Okay. Okay. No more questions. If not, we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 2051 related to campaign contributions.

This amends statutes to provide that an excess contribution of more than $100 in cash in the aggregate from a single person during an election period to a candidate, candidate Committee or non-candidate committee shall escheat to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund, if not returned to the contributor within 30 days. Just to be clear with everyone.

It's already in law that candidates cannot accept more than $100 in cash from an individual during an election period. What this says is makes it clear that the money shall escheat to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund if it's not returned to the contributor within 30 days. So that's the change with this one.

First up, we have Campaign Spending Commission.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. Chair Tarnish, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Yes, this is a housekeeping measure to sort of clean up. As Chair Thomas pointed out, there already is a prohibition from accepting cash in the aggregate of more than $100.

This would close that loophole and require the return of the money within 30 days. Otherwise it would issue to our special plan. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. We got testimony and support from League of Women Voters of Hawaii. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure or on Zoom? No? Okay, any questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2052 relating to campaign contributions.

This is also the state contractor contribution ban subject matter. This measure is one that was proposed by the Campaign Spending Commission. The House Bill 1519 was one that I had introduced, based on the discussions we had in conference Committee last session.

So, HB2052 prohibits state and county contractors, officers, and any officer’s immediate family, with contracts of $100,000 or more for goods and services, or 250,000 or more for construction, from contributing to candidate, non candidate committees, candidates, or any person, for any political purpose, for the duration of the contract, and prohibits these individuals with grants.

It prohibits grantees, grantees officers, and grantees officers immediate family, with grants of more than $100,000, from contributing to candidate or non candidate committees, candidates, or any person, for any political purpose, for the duration of the grant. Requires any unlawful contribution to be returned to the contributor, or it will escheat to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund.

Okay, so first up we have campaign Spending commission.

Thank you again, Chair Tarnus, Vice Chair, Board Members of the Committee. Yes, this Bill, as was pointed out, is really similar to House B 1519. The main distinction, really, is we added the component that the state procurement office, to sort of model the 100,000 or more for goods and services, and over 2,250,000 or more for construction contracts.

The other distinction is our Bill does not include language requiring the contractors to provide information about who their immediate family Members and officers are. Because, at the time, our commissioners don't feel that it's our position to be imposing what we want in our statute on other agencies and sister agencies.

But we do feel that we would need that language in there in order to fulfill and carry out the terms of the Bill, and what we're hoping to achieve. Think that's really the main distinction. And, other than the definition of family, oh, yeah. I think in ours, our definition, instead of just being the.

The spouse and their minor children, ours include adult children and their spouses, and reciprocal beneficiaries.

Thank you. We've received total of 20 testimonies in support, two with comments, none in opposition. And I'll note, Representative Shimizu, a couple of them. The Hawaii Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations say they recommend adopting the more reasonable and balanced framework proposed by HB 1519.

And League of Women Voters of Hawaii says HB 1519 is a much stronger Bill, with same intent. So, just for your knowledge, about those measures, about their testimony.

Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not, questions. Members, seeing none, I think I will move on to the next measure. House Bill 2050. That's what we just did. No, 2053 is relating to campaign contributions.

This measure amends Hawaii revised statutes to prohibit state and county elected officials, as defined in the statute, from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during any regular session or special session of the state Legislature, including any extension of any regular session or special session, or any legislative recess, day, holiday, or weekend, on this measure.

First up, Campaign Spending Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarus, Vice Chair Poy, Members of the Committee. Yes, this Bill amends, as was pointed out, is to sort of close also that loophole. Right now there is a. A prohibition from elected officials, including fundraisers. Right. During a. A session.

So, what we have seen, that we don't want to close the poll, is having contributions occur during that period of time, because of concerns that there would be influence during the session about bills that are before. I'm available for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. We've received a total of three testimonies in support, eight in opposition, and one with comments. Mr. Hurt, you're next, sir.

I. We wanted to stand in support of this Bill. We think that it is necessary just for transparency purposes, and to help safeguard, and not to safeguard, I'm sorry, but to promote the trust that we're losing in our institutions.

And we think this is a great way to give that back to the people, with the language in this Bill, as well as we do also recognize the implications of what this Bill can assume, or suggest, or even appear to become, but it's important that we not just think about how this affects sitting Members here today, but who could come into this building eventually in the future, which is what were you thinking about?

So. And with that, we'll also just say and stand on our submitted testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Is Ms. Castillo still on Zoom? Ms. Castillo, I know you have testimony coming from you personally. Would you like to provide that testimony?

Miss Castillo, are you there? We have testimony from you as an individual. I wondered if you wanted to present that testimony. No. Okay. Not present. Members, I would refer you. Just. I want to make your aware, make you aware of a few things in the testimony.

The League of Women Voters of Hawaii supports it with an amendment, and they say we note that routine grassroots fundraising mechanisms, like a donation page on a legislator's website, may remain acceptable. So, we request an amendment to the legislation to allow for this. Ms. Castillo written provided testimony as an individual.

She says that she's opposing this piece of legislation, saying that it would unintentionally harm elected officials who have pledged not to accept corporate money and rely on small dollar. Let me try that again.

I have concerns that HB2053, as currently drafted, would unintentionally harm elected officials who have pledged not to accept corporate money and rely on small dollar donations. So, I respectfully request that HB2053 be deferred or amended to narrowly prohibit the holding of fundraising events during legislative session, rather than imposing a broad ban on all solicitation.

And I would note for Members that we currently have a prohibition on having fundraisers during session already. Other testimony from individuals: Jackie Keefe, Stacy Alapai, Kahi Pacaro, Christina Holt, Marsha Kemble, all individuals testifying in opposition to HB2053, basically saying the same thing as Ms. Castillo, and Kendall Crump, all saying the same thing.

So, they are in opposition to this measure. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 2053? If not. Questions, Members?

Yes, Representative Belatti.

is League of Women Voters here?

No.

Okay, no questions then.

The only person here is Campaign Spending Commission and Common Cause. Any questions? Yes, Vice Chair.

There was testimony concerned with having, say, donation links live on a website. Do you foresee that being an issue?

You know, I looked at the testimony right before I got here, so I didn't have a chance to have a discussion. But we are meeting with the commissioners. We have a meeting on Wednesday. So we can definitely bring that up and kind of get that internally and how that would work, and can report back to you.

Thank you. I just share the concerns with the grassroots candidates and, you know, actively remembering to take down and put back up a link, even something small like that, could be a problem. So, I appreciate you having that conversation with your commissioners. So. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Other questions, Members? Yes, Representative Shimizu.

I'm sorry. Just piggybacking on what was just discussed for my clarity. Are you saying that for an elected official to have a donation provision on their website is considered soliciting?

I didn't say that. I said we would. I would take a look at that to see if that would qualify, or what these parameters are, and if this would apply. So, I would need to get back with the Committee.

And Members, I would note that the donate button says donate, so it sounds like a solicitation of a. But it's interesting that the testimony is saying, hey, why don't we just allow that. But the Bill, as you propose, it would ban all soliciting.

Yes.

So if we were to read this with plain language.

Yes.

That donate button would have to be removed.

Right. But I would need to check. We did not discuss that. So I don't want to.

Understood. But just the plain reading of it.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, members? If not-- no? Okay. If not, we'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 2054. This measure, relating to the Campaign Spending Commission's electronic filing system, amends various sections of Hawaii's campaign spending laws by requiring designated campaign finance forms to be submitted electronically through the Campaign Spending Commission's upgraded electronic filing system. First up, we have Campaign Spending Commission. Aren't you glad we had all of the Campaign Spending Commission bills in one hearing?

I do appreciate that, so thank you very much. And I do appreciate everyone's time to hear in our bills. This is a housekeeping measure. Last year--thank you very much--you folks gave us money to upgrade our electronic filing system, which I'm happy to report we are designing that, and rolling that out, and hope to roll that out by the end of the year in time for the next election cycle.

In the midst of doing that, we recognize that there is language in our statute that requires some hand delivery of some of the filings, and so, just to make it consistent with the electronic filing system that's what is in this bill to kind of clean that up. Available for any questions.

Thank you very much. And then we have testimony in support from the League of Women Voters. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, questions, members? I just have one question for the Campaign Spending Commission. I note on your bill that your effective date is November 4th, 2026.

Yes. That's because we're in the middle of an election cycle, so if this was to take effect, as most bills would be on July 1, we would be in the middle of an election cycle; we wouldn't be able to carry out the provision. So we want to wait until after this election cycle, so that's why it's starting the day after the General Election.

Thank you very much, appreciate that. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on to the final measure on our agenda, House Bill 2055, relating to the Campaign Spending Commission. Oh, that's remarkable. Another campaign spending commission Bill, okay.

This one adjusts the salaries of the Campaign Spending Commission's Executive Director and associate Director, to align with similar government officials who have compliance and enforcement responsibilities, and it appropriates funds. First up, we have the Campaign Spending Commission.

Good afternoon, and thank you for your time. The commission submitted this Bill because, in every year when there is an evaluation of the Executive Director and staff, you have noticed the disparity in salaries that's been going on. The commission staff salaries are not determined by the Commission on salaries, like some of the other legislative branches.

And every year, we do go in the budget and finance to try to increase the budget to allow for bigger pay raises. But unfortunately, especially in this market right now, that line item has been deleted.

So, this is a way to sort of close that disparity, and hopes to continue to attract qualified and people dedicated to this position. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. We've also received written testimony in support from the League of Women Voters, Hawaii, and Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Is there anyone on Zoom or in the room wishing to testify on House Bill 2055? No, okay. Any questions, Members? Representative Shimizu, please proceed.

Wondering if folks have any staffing concerns at the Campaign Spending Commission, as far as vacancies and your ability to do your job with the staff that you have?

If I may, let's go ahead and answer this question, but that's not the subject of this Bill. But let's go ahead and answer that question, because that's the sort of thing that we're dealing with in the budget for the Campaign Spending Commission, which is a separate measure.

But while it's a valid question and while you're here, please go ahead and respond.

It's currently, we only have five staff. We see funding last session to hire two additional staffing, an elections assistant and an investigator. We are in the process of doing that. It does take time as far as getting position descriptions and all of that. So, we are in the process of doing that, but right now we have four.

As we stated in our testimony, we have over 700 committees and reporting that goes on. So, it is a lot of work for the number of people, limited staff that we have in the budget. But we do our best to try to be available for questions, and try to help with filings and things like that.

Thank you for your intelligence. Chair.

Sure, so you've got 4, 5 positions. One's vacant, and you've got two new positions that are going through the process to be established.

Yes Chair.

Yes, Chair.

Okay. That's the summary. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, then let's go ahead and go directly into decision making. Thank you to all the members who have joined us so we can move ahead with decision making. Back to the top of the agenda, House Bill 1525. On this measure, I'd like to move this forward.

It was educational for us to hear about the challenges of opening up more voter service centers and money is just part of the challenge, but getting qualified candidates to apply for the job as a seasonal employee is one that they're currently experiencing.

And maybe we can help them out by talking to our friends who are just finishing undergrad and getting them to apply. But I would like to move this forward with the House Draft 1 so that we can continue this discussion and see if we can be able to fund some of these three different projects here.

I would like to take the amendment also from Mr. James Gashel about accessibility. I'd like to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

And I would like to include in the Standing Committee Report the amounts that Office of Elections has given us as to how much it would cost to do number two and three, the printing and mailing the digital voter information guide to all registered voters, $2,074,913 and the $178,000 for the Office of Elections to support a public outreach and engagement campaign.

We only have a dollar amount recommended from one of the county clerks and so, we'll include that in the Committee report as well. But I hope if this Committee approves the, my recommended action to pass it as an HD 1, it does go to Finance.

And I would ask the other clerks to provide this information to Finance so we have that information about how much money they would need in order to open more voter service centers. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? Represent Belatti.

Comment, if I may?

I really appreciate that you're advancing this, Chair.

Sure.

It was a little bit concerning to me that in the conversation we had with Honolulu Elections Officer, that there seems to be a lot of resistance and I feel like I think we can be creative with a workforce that can be recruited, that it's not simply just recent graduates who could be a potential workforce.

I mean there's, there's recently retired folks who are so keenly interested in making sure that we have elections. And so, I really appreciate that we're moving this forward, and I hope we can apply some pressure.

The representative from City and County Honolulu kept saying, well the Legislature decided that we're going to all-mail voting, but I think he needs to be listening to us and hear that we as the Legislature want to see more voting service centers.

So, I really, really appreciate that this is moving forward and that we can urge them to do more because people want to be there in person to vote.

Yeah, understood. And I do appreciate the comments from our members, specifically Representative Garcia emphasizing that people have the right to be able to vote on election day. And so, if they choose to exercise that right, they need to be able to do it. So, I appreciate all this coming out in our conversation. Other questions or concerns, Members? Representative Garcia.

Thanks, Chair. And I want to agree with the previous speaker, with Rep. Belatti on this. I did have concerns with the pushback from the City Clerk. If we offer more resources and more money, it was still hesitation of wanting to establish more in person centers on election day.

My other concern was why are we contracting out our hiring process? I believe they should be able to hire themselves like any other government position. So, that's just my concerns, but I'll gladly vote yes on this Bill. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Vice Chair.

Very similarly to the conversation everyone contributed to, I was a little taken aback when I said, what do you need? Tell us what we can give you. And that still wasn't met with a response of well, I need this, I need this, I need this much money, his many people help getting, you know, sites, certificates, or whatever.

Like anything you need, just tell us what you need, and we can figure out how we can maybe accommodate that, even for just one more center, two more centers. So, yeah, it's a shared frustration and I look forward to continuing the conversation. Very interesting to have.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, HD1.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1885. On this measure, very good discussion, but there was, in my view, a gaping hole that's missing, and that was, we need to hear from the organization in the state that manages all of these contracts and procurement. And because this committee is the first of two committees, you know, we're the ones that would have to deal with that procurement issue because I do think that there has to be some sort of transparency in here about who these individuals are. And you know what?

If it's prohibiting a state agency from entering into a contract to procure goods, or services, or construction with any business that is owned or operated, or in which a controlling interest is held by a relative or household member of a director or deputy director, we've got to have that database available so that the public could be able to see it, if that's not violating privacy rules.

So it's a-- there's a lot, I think, that still needs to be done on this bill. I would note that I introduced this bill at the request of a senator who has introduced the companion bill, Senate Bill 2970, and it is being heard in the government-- GVO, government and-- Government Operations Committee in the Senate.

So they deal with procurement and things like that. So, Senate Bill 2970 is scheduled for hearing in GVO, Government Operations, on Thursday in two days, February 5th at 3:01 p.m., and then it goes to the Senate Judiciary.

I would request that I be allowed to defer this measure and wait for the senate bill to come over in hopes that the senator who came up with this idea could work with his counterparts and get the bill stronger and address those concerns because I think it's still got a big gap in it.

So that's my preference, is to defer. Questions or concerns? Okay. Thank you very much for your support. Next measure, House Bill 1521, relating to government contracts. This has to do with ensuring that records created, received, maintained, or used by private contractors performing government functions on behalf of a public agency is subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act.

I think this is a good measure, but I think there's a lack of understanding, perhaps, with some of the agencies who would have to be implementing this, and they're very concerned about it. They're concerned about increasing cost, Department of Human Services, Office of Youth Services. Others are concerned about the confidentiality concerns, the Employee Retirement System.

Nonprofit organizations who provide contracts to the state are concerned, like Hale Kipa. So, I think we need to continue this conversation because I think transparency is an important goal for us here, so I would like to move it forward with the House Draft 1, defect the effective date to July 1, 3000, I would like to adopt the amendment from the Office of Information Practices, page two, lines 5 and 18--the words, agency function, shall replace the words, government function--and I would like to move this on to Finance.

And as you heard, as the gentleman from Public First Law Center was leaving, I asked him to follow up with Department of Human Services, Office of Youth Services, and the Employee Retirement System in Hale Kipa to talk to them about this bill, which they help craft, to try to address their concerns before it's heard in Finance.

So that's my goal: pass it out with amendments, defect the date, incorporate the Office of Information Practices amendment, and try to keep the conversation going. Questions or concerns, members?

Chair?

Yes. Representative Shimizu.

I have concerns that the AG expressed, and just a possible privacy issue, so I will be voting no.

Okay. And yes, that's good to point. Thank you for pointing that out. The Attorney General didn't make it to today's hearing, but their testimony on this measure was in firm opposition for a number of reasons. So, obviously Mr. Creps has a lot of talking to do. Any other questions or concerns? If not-- oh, yes. Representative.

Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to echo the comments of Rep. Shimizu. I, too, will be voting a no. Thank you.

Okay. Sure, sure. Any other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 1521 with amendments. Representative Hashem is excused. Are there any voting with reservations? I have no votes for Representatives Garcia and Shimizu. Are there any additional no votes? Hearing none, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next, I want to go to House Bill 1519. My recommendation is to move this out with amendments, defect the effective date to July 1, 3000, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, I would like to start this out as a...

In the first phase, shall I say, the counties, though they did not testify on the measure, they did talk to me before session. They were very unhappy with this Bill and felt it would have been an unfunded mandate, which is true.

I wasn't offering to pay, and it is going to cost money to do this tracking who these individuals are, compensated officers, their immediate family Members. So, my recommendation is to remove references to the county. So, no county officials. It would only apply to the state. I would like to incorporate the State Procurement Office amendments.

And as you heard, I requested specific language from them on their recommendations, because they had made suggestions, numerous suggestions in their testimony, some of which they provided in actual Bill language for an amendment, but not everything. And so, I've asked them to provide me with that. My intention is to incorporate all of the State Procurement Office amendments.

I would also like to incorporate the Campaign Spending Commission, some of their amendments. I don't, I do not want to incorporate their first amendment, which was to include uncompensated officers or board Members.

I personally believe that if you're an uncompensated board Member of an organization, like a nonprofit organization, they, that uncompensated board Member, is not getting any pecuniary benefit, no financial benefit, by the nonprofit getting the contract. They're doing this as a volunteer. So, I don't want to prohibit them from making campaign contributions.

So, that's why it's compensated officers and compensated board Members. So, I do not want to incorporate their first recommendation. Their second recommendation,

I'm okay with, you know, their definition of immediate family Member to be expanded to include any dependent, and the spouse or reciprocal beneficiary of the dependent, because there are dependents, if you qualify under the IRS, who are adults, and they may have a reciprocal beneficiary or a spouse. So, I think that's legitimate. I do.

I'm okay including campaigns for ballot initiatives, since that may be something that would—I think that that was also something that you were mentioning. Right. Yeah. So, I want to include that, and I would look for—oh, yes.

And one of the things that the State Procurement Office will provide to us is language about clear penalties for non‑compliance, which could include fines and contract suspension. The contractor might lose their contract if they violate this. And so, State Procurement Office will give us that language. So, those are the changes that I am recommending.

Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative Cochran, I would much prefer.

To keep county in, personally, as I worked in the county for eight years. But so, I'll, I'll pass this through. But I would really prefer county stay in this Bill. But it's up to you, Chair. That's your per. So, so, reservations for me.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions or concerns? And, and, and Rep. Cochran, I certainly intend to return to the counties once we work out the details of the state. But I appreciate your—your admonition to include counties. Sure. You have an experience as a county council person that I don't.

Yes. Represent Shimizu. Chair, I had some reservations, but you did address them with their amendment language, and I can support your passing the Bill.

Thank you. I appreciate your discernment. Any other questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote, pass with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 1519 with amendments. I have Representative Hashem as excused, and Representative Cochran with reservations. Are there any additional reservations? Any voting? No. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure, House Bill 2050, relating to partial public financing of elections. On this measure, I'd like to recommend moving it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, defect the effective date to July 1, 3000, have blank amounts for-- I'd like to put the-- oh, just let me think about this.

I'd like to blank out the appropriation amount and put the appropriation amount request in the Standing Committee report. I want to leave the rest of the numbers in there that the Campaign Spending Commission worked so hard to come up with in terms of the increase in the amounts per candidate and the details about that.

I want to leave all those numbers in there. But the actual appropriation amount that they would need, I want to put that into the Standing Committee report. That's my recommendation: technical amendments, defect the effective date, appropriation amount blanked in the bill, and put the amount in the Standing Committee report. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, members?

Chair?

Representative Shimizu.

I believe in increasing public funding to encourage more candidates. I would like to see language that establishes campaign fundraising limits period, to take money out of the equation.

Thank you for that suggestion. And if I remember correctly, if one takes public financing, you have to agree to a limit as how much you spend.

I understand that. I'm just--

That's the only thing I wanted to mention. It's different from what you were asking for?

Yes, it is. It would be across the board, period.

Understood. So anyway, I appreciate your suggestion for a different bill, but you're always a font of ideas. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 2050 with amendments. Representative Hashem is excused. Are there any voting with reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations for Representative Garcia and for Representative Shimizu. Any voting no? Okay. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you very much. Next, House Bill 2051, relating to campaign contributions. This is where if you get more than $100 in cash from a single person during the election period as a candidate, you have to give them-- either return it to the contributor within 30 days or it would escheat to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund.

I think this is a very straightforward bill, I think it's housekeeping, and I would like to pass this out unamended with a clean date. Questions or concerns, members? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass unamended.

Voting on House Bill 2051 as is. Representative Hashem is excused. Are there any voting with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 2052. Members, you will remember that this is the Campaign Spending Commission's version of the contractor-- campaign contribution ban. I would like to defer this measure and rather use House Bill 1519 as our vehicle to move forward with our recommended approach to accomplish the goal. So my recommendation is to defer.

And I note that several of the testifiers thought that House Bill 1519 was preferred. So I recommend we defer. And I'm open to any comments or concerns from members. Anything? If not, thank you very much. Next measure, House Bill 2053, relating to campaign contributions.

And this is basically prohibiting state and county elected officials from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions during any regular session of the Legislature, any extension of the regular session, or any special session. My recommendation is, I'd like to move this forward.

Even though this measure was opposed by numerous individuals and groups that are good government groups, I note their opposition because they feel that this would make it difficult for those elected officials who have committed not to take corporate contributions, and it would make it difficult for them to raise money, so they oppose it.

But we've been talking about this for some time and I think it's worth continuing the conversation because this testimony is something new and different. I hadn't heard that before, that, you know, the League of Women Voters are saying, well, go ahead and keep the donation button on. That's okay. Session just during our legislative session.

And so it is a different-- it's apples and oranges. My recommendation is to remove the county elected officials from this bill, I want to defect the effective date to July 1, 3000, and move it out with an HD 1. Questions or concerns, members?

Chair?

Representative Shimizu.

You know, as a grassroots candidate who won by only 78 votes and had a opponent who was more like an incumbent, I agree that we need to take money out of the equation. Yes, we should not be soliciting in session.

I don't feel it's a crime to receive unsolicited donations from well-meaning people who want to support your cause and your work as a legitimate and well-meaning legislator, so I would vote yes with reservations.

Thank you for your thoughts on that. This is a complicated matter. Appreciate your thoughts. Other questions or concerns, members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 2053 with amendments. Representative Hashem is excused. Are there any reservations in addition to Representative Shimizu?

Reservations.

Reservations for Representative Garcia. Vice Chair is also voting with reservations. Any noes? Okay. Hearing none, recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next. House Bill 2054 relating to the Campaign Spending Commission's electronic filing system. I think this is housekeeping. It's great that the Campaign Spanish Commission is is moving forward with their electronic filing. It just will make everything more efficient. My recommendation is just to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Keep the Clean Effective Date and move it on to finance. Questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote pass with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 2054 with amendments. Representative Hashem excused. Are there any reservations? Any no's Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Final measure on our hearing notice today. House Bill 2055 related the campaign Spending Commission adjusting the salaries of the Campaign Spending Commission's Executive Director and Associate Director to align with similar government officials who have compliance and enforcement responsibilities. Once I became aware of this, I was determined to try to address it.

So I appreciate the Campaign Spending Commission has proposed this measure. I would like to recommend we move this forward with amendments. I want to defect the effective date and actual blank out the appropriation amount but put it into the Standing Committee report and move it on to Finance for their consideration. Questions or concerns Members Chair Yes Representative.

I agree that the Executive Director should be compensated in a better way. I don't have enough data so I will be voting with reservation issuance.

I have one more recommendation. I want to defect the effective date 3-1-3000. Just to be clear and I I hear your concerns Represent Shimizu and thank you for sharing those Any other comments or concerns Measures Members on this measure pass with amendments. If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2055 with amendments. Representative Passion is excused. Is anyone in addition to Rep. Shimizu voting with reservations. Representative Garcia with reservations. Any voting no recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, thank you very much. This was our first main major hearing. We're going to have hearings on Wednesday and Thursday. I'm going to try to avoid having hearings on Friday.

Thank you.

I want this to be family-friendly. We have a new member of the family, Vice Chair, and I just want to really try to be more accommodating. And I want the public to hear this too, because this committee, for the last three years, has been working really hard to get through the backlog of bills that have been stuck in this committee for years, and sometimes, like, a decade, and we've done that.

We've gotten through that backlog. And that was really because of your hard work. So now that we've gotten through a majority of that backlog, I want to establish a pace that is sustainable by staff, and by members, and by agencies. So my goal is to have Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday hearings.

We might go a little late on Tuesday and Thursday, but that's my goal. Let's just stick with that. So I'm welcome-- I welcome any input along the way, but thank you for your participation today. With that, we are adjourned.