Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening our Joint Committee hearing on Labor and Technology and our friends from the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs. Today is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, 3:00 PM. We're in Conference Room 225 and just a few housekeeping announcements. The hearing is being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel.

In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on February 6th, 2026, at 3:00 PM. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute.

The content, including the hearing notice copy of the measures and testimony can be found on the legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimony. And first up on our list is Senate Bill 2141.

This is relating to allowance on service retirements, includes certain law enforcement administrators and employees of the Department of Law enforcement as Class A members of the pension and retirement systems, and provides guidance for the computation of retirement benefits similar to police officers. First up on our list, Director Hashimoto from DHRD.

I'll stand on our written testimony offering comments in support. And we also provided this committee...

Okay, comments in support. Thank you so much, Director. I did see Acting Budget and Finance Director, Dr. Seth Colby.

I don't think we submitted written testimony on this one, did we?

Yes, we have 2141. Thank you. And there's a lot to track. We have Deputy Attorney General, Lorianne Tanigawa. No person. Oh, in person. Thank you, Ricky. Go ahead. Yes.

Okay. Good afternoon, chairs and Members of the Committee. Lori Tanigawa, Deputy Attorney General. The Department submitted written testimony in which we raised a potential subject title issue for the committee's consideration. I'm available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Ernest Rebelo, Deputy Director for DLE. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs, Committee Members. My name is Ernest Rebelo. I am a Deputy Director with the Department of Law Enforcement. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Senate Bill 2141.

Consistent with prior testimony submitted for House Bill 1662, this measure reflects the Department of Law Enforcement's leadership's commitment to responsibly address retirement classification without seeking any benefit enhancements. Individuals who move into the DLE leadership roles acknowledge and agree to pay the higher required retirement contributions associated with their positions.

Importantly, this proposal does not expand or enhance retirement benefits. Members will retain only the benefits they have already earned or accrued within their previous retirement class, rather than adjusting benefits across an entire class. In addition, to affected members will continue to contribute to Social Security, as required.

The Department is also aware of concerns previously raised by the Attorney General regarding the measures title in House Bill 1662. While dealing respects and appreciates this feedback, similar measures with the same or substantially similar title language have advanced in prior legislative sessions without any concerns being raised. Dealey remains interested in working collaboratively to address any technical issues.

Sorry, Deputy Director, your time's up.

Sorry, sir.

Yeah.

Okay. Good afternoon.

Thank you.

We have Talbert Young, Executive Director at URS.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Senators. The Board of Trustees has not reviewed this Bill and therefore, doesn't offer a specific position. However, Administration has provided you testimony with comments about the Bill, and the summary of those comments are there's a number of provisions that are currently already in this version of the draft Bill that we think are important to maintain.

So, as this Bill continues to progress, it would be good for the Legislature to keep track to ensure that some of those provisions remain. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Young. That completes our list of registered testifiers on Senate Bill 2141. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure. If not, Members, questions? Yes. Chair Fukunaga.

Perhaps for Deputy Director Rebelo.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Good afternoon. In terms of, you know, the number of affected employees and/or personnel, do you have a rough estimate?

As far as I know, it currently would only affect two employees at this current time. It would be Director Lambert and Deputy Deputy Director Radula.

Okay. And with respect to some of the proposed amendments from DHRD, has your Department taken a look at some of the other positions that have been identified?

Yes, we are trying to work collaboratively with the AGs, DHRD, all of stakeholders, to try and make this work.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Members, any further questions? Senator Moriwaki.

Attorney General. Thank you. This is an important Bill to us because we, this is the first time we have a state, state law enforcement. And, and it, it troubles me that maybe the title that you folks say is not broad enough to cover, but I'm just wondering, if we were to say that, that we include the group of law enforcement officers into Class A to align them with computations similar to the police officers, would that be sufficient in terms of curing this problem? B

Because it's an important Bill and I'd like to see us move forward on that.

Sure. I mean, I think certainly the changes to—there is actually a section called 8874 on page 8 of the Bill. The title of 8874 is allowance on service retirements, which is matches up with the Bill, the title.

So, anything that goes beyond, for example, the allowing for increased contributions, which I understand to be also an important part, though, of the Bill, right, if you're going to increase benefits, there's going to be a corresponding increase to the contributions. But increasing the contributions, we believe, would fall outside the narrow scope of allowance and service retirement.

But if you were to reclassify them into class A and then say that you're computing the allowance accordingly, wouldn't that sort of cure it? Because you're not, you're not separating out each function or each—you know what I'm saying, each provision. But you're actually saying we're going to put them into a different class.

And that class, computing their salary would be in alignment with others in that class.

I mean, I think you could try and make that argument, but we just want the committees to be aware that every aspect is in a separate statutory section. So, the reclassification to class A is in one statute, the increased contributions are in another statute, and then the computation of allowance of service retirements is another statute. Right?

If it was all together, I think there's a stronger argument. But if you proceed as is with this, we're just—we just really want to make sure the committees are aware of it. It could be subject to challenge.

Thank you.

Okay, Members, any further questions? Thank you. If not, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda. Senate Bill 2593. This is relating to Law Enforcement Standards Board exempts certain positions of Law Enforcement Standards Board from the state civil service law and collective bargaining. First up on our list is Victor McCraw, administrator. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Victor McCraw. I'm the Administrator for the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board. Three positions that we're asking to be exempt from civil service are critical and core positions for the board's administrative staff.

All three of them deal with sensitive information, confidential information, all of which deals with employment standards, which would be a conflict of interest if not exempt. We're also looking for individuals with specialized abilities and specialized experience. Myself, I have 40 years in law enforcement, 29 of that was with the state police.

Three and a half was doing the exact job I'm doing now for another state, about six and a half years nationally consulting. I've been here One year. All that qualifies me for my position. None of it qualifies me to do it alone. And at present, I'm the only administrative staff for the board.

So these three positions are critical to get our get. Get started on what the board's required to do by HRS139.

Okay, thank you so much, Administrator. Adrian, Forgive me. Is Adrian here from law enforcement? I don't know how to pronounce his last name correctly.

Maybe you can help me with that, Mr. Tom. I can. Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Mark Tom, in my personal capacity, standing in for Agent Daqua, who's the Chair of the Law Enforcement Standards Board. He sends his great apologies for not being present. He had a last minute family emergency he had to attend to.

However, the Law Enforcement Standards Boards does strongly support Senate Bill 2593. This bill is really key to ensuring that these amendments to the RTRs allows them to do critical work in ensuring the proposed certification deadlines are met properly. We do appreciate the Committee hearing this bill as it's a very key bill for certification. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Tom. We have Randy Pereira, HGA or Nui Sepes.

Stands on testimony in opposition.

Okay. Stands on testimony in opposition. And then we have Victor Ramos in opposition. That concludes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2593. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure, if not Members. Questions?

I have a question.

Yeah. Senator Inouye.

HGA. Why the opposition? Sorry, I don't have the testimony in front of me.

So I thank you, Senator, for the question. We're opposed because exempt employees are considered at will. And we suggest that these employees should be at least have civil service protections. And if there is difficulty recruiting these employees, then they should look at other avenues in place, such as possibly reclassification.

Repricing, streamlining the hiring, and while keeping them civil service. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? I have a question for either Mr. Tom or Administrator McCraw. If you both could come up, please. Actually have a few questions. Thank you for coming back up. Has the Law Enforcement Standards Board attempted. To hire through civil service as of yet?

Thank you, Chair.

The Law Enforcement Standards Board has zero funding except for my position. Okay. So this hiring would be in conjunction with getting the funding, hopefully this legislative session.

So as a follow up to that, was positions included in the governor's budget? These three positions specifically were for position classification plus funding.

The classifications are still pending. The funding is in the budget.

And if you. If this bill were to move forward, would the Law Enforcement Standards Board have the intent to convert the exempt positions to civil service?

I don't see how that would be possible or practical. These positions will have access to very confidential information, including identities of police officers, including undercover officers.

The administrative position would have access to everything that the board does, including what happens in Executive session, which would be a conflict of interest, especially when they're dealing with things that could affect employment of other state employees. And the investigator position very especially is going to come into contact or have knowledge of information that should not be.

Should not compromise state employees that may or may not have an effect on their employment through. Through those. Through those confidential investigations. The board is a regulatory body.

Right. Mr. Tom. And Chair Fukunaga.

No, I. I apologize. I can't really speak more onto that matter, but I can follow up if there's any additional.

Chair Fukunaga.

Perhaps those employees that you're seeking exempt status for would be. Would they be comparable to excluded managerial types of employees? You know, oftentimes within state government, there's a group of employees that are treated as excluded partly because they do work with confidential information and other types of matters.

Is that kind of the status that you're seeking to achieve?

Yes, especially for these three positions. As the board moves forward and hopefully hire more, more employees in the future, there's a lot of work to be done. The board was tasked with all of the. Everything in HR 139 back in 2018. The date has been pushed and pushed and pushed.

It's been pushed to this coming summer, July 1st. And in this legislative session, we're also asking that that be pushed back to 2028, just because we don't have the capacity or the resources to accomplish those tasks.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Members, any further questions? Senator Inouye.

Yes. Just to follow up again with your introduction, you said you were the only employee in the Standards Board right now?

Okay. When it was established, the board, did we include, aside from your salary of future hirings as an example? Aren't you going to get a secretary or a Clerk to help you with the work that.

Correct.

We all know that in any office you have administration work. That's civil service.

And that's an excellent question. I appreciate it. Right now I'm doing all those tasks and everything else. There was money for an assistant, but the classification did not incorporate anything near the level of skill we would need to hire that position.

So instead of spending those funds on an employee that we may or may not need, we elected to put together a complete package of what we absolutely do need and then ask for funding for that.

Didn't you think that you as an administrator would require that the Administration work as such that papers get out of the office, that you're complying with ethical rules and other measures that an administrator, assistant or a Clerk would make sure that you are, for transparency sake, have the opportunity to use that funds to hire a Clerk or change the description of that position?

As you indicated, you got salary for the assistant because you could easily come back to the Legislature and to the agency that oversees you to redefine your workforce. That's kind of interesting.

Yes. And that was. Again, I'm the administrator for the board. The chairperson of the board is not here. He'd be able to answer those historic questions about decisions that were made, the speed at which.

On top of that, we do have a board already in place.

The board is in place. The board has no mechanism or resources by which to accomplish.

Who does the minutes for the board?

I do.

Are you in compliance with the ethical rules with regards to everything that includes posting and. And the policies that go along with an authority or.

I am. Okay.

All right. Okay. We got some work to do. All right, thank you.

Any other questions, Members? Oh, Senator Fevella. Request for DHRD. I know you didn't submit testimony, but thank you.

Thanks so much, folks.

So just on the conversation we was having, how difficult it is to have reclassification for the position that Senator Inouye was just saying that he might or might not mean because he wants a position that is specialized in their field, but everybody in our office is not specialized in our field because then we wouldn't have any employees in a Department.

So moving on to grow the Department and to get into regulatory in moving forward, how hard it would be to work with them in reclassifying their staff, we can get them staffed and on board in a property.

That's somewhat of a complicated question because I'm not very familiar with what types of positions they have authorized.

But typically if you're changing a position, say from one kind of a general clerical, which I think it sounds like they may have gotten, maybe an office assistant or an admin assistant, and then you want to make it a more specialized class as long as the salary is not too much higher than what's budgeted for that position, it's very simple.

It's just a new position description and their HR person can change the classification if it's, you know, if it's going from say, a clerical position with a certain salary and the salary of the position that you want to establish is significantly higher, then it's actually not an HR impediment.

But there are budget restrictions that you have to go get governor's approval for that variance between different classes of work. If the salary increase exceeds, I believe it's 20%. But something around that.

Yeah, Just. Just follow up. So what I'm not understanding what he was saying is that he wants to exempt certain positions because he can be able to do it. But if we get, I guess the position that we're talking about, Senator, talking about, there wouldn't be an exempt position. Right. There would be a civil servant position.

And it comes with everything else.

As a civil servant, typically, yes. If it's kind of a general clerical, that's typically civil service work. I just wanted to point out too, for both committees, benefits. Sorry. Just as a little piece of HR101, there's a difference between exemption and exclusion from collective bargaining. So it's either civil service or exempt is one option.

And then there's a. That's under Chapter 89. Right. Civil Service or exempt. And. And then there's exclusion. Sorry, that's 76. And then Chapter 89 deals with included versus excluded. So you can be an exempt employee, exempt from civil service, but included in the bargaining unit. And there are, There are different statutes which govern both of those determinations.

So you. Like I said, if what I hear him saying is that he wants somebody who's excluded, excluded from the union because of confidentiality. And that is a function of Chapter 89, not of civil service versus exempt. So you can be civil service and be excluded because of confidentiality.

We have, like HR folks, we're all excluded because of the conflict, right, between being a member of the union and doing the work that we do. So perhaps we can help them, guide them a little bit more in terms of making the right selections with these different options, I'm happy to help.

But we have, we have people within the Department, in other departments that is part of the union that have access to classification, classified and highly sensitive material, right?

Yes.

At this point, yeah. That's why I cannot understand why would be that right.

It depends on whether if it meets a statutory definition or criteria. There's a. There's a whole laundry list of reasons why, why a position could be excluded from collective bargaining. And one is because they deal with confidential employee employer relations is what the statute reads. And that's basically like HR folks, right?

We can't do our job and also be a union Member. And I believe there are other Exclusions, for example, in the AG's office where some of their investigators are tasked with investigating state employees and those forms folks are also excluded. So there are carve outs that could be appropriate.

But I think the larger conversation is about whether they should be civil service or exempt. And I think that's what the union is objecting to as well as that part of it.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Senator Inouye.

Yeah. Just to follow up while you're here, this measure does give them complete exemption. Okay. According to page three, line 15, this act is exempt from of the position of the standard board from the civil service law in collective bargaining. So.

So they could be exempt, but they could also be included then if it doesn't speak to.

We've done it in many other agencies as well, but it's just to make sure that we have a functional agency. But this, if I remember chairs and Members, this was created by under the Attorney General's office. Right. When we created this special law enforcement body.

Maybe, maybe I'm not sure if Deputy Attorney General Tom or administrator have an answer to Senator Inouye's question how the Law Enforcement Standards Board was created aside.

From the law DLE , because DLE is under the AGs. Right.

So my limited understanding and I apologize, I can try to take that back to Mr. Dakwa, the Chair and get follow up. But I believe that the Law Enforcement Standard Board is just attached to the Attorney Generals. I don't know if they're a specific decision of the Attorney Generals. Thank you, but I'll follow up.

I do understand. It's just a concern. We want to have a functional agency and just to make sure and you know we created this as well, the Legislature did. So we want to make sure that they're functioning well. Okay. All right.

Fully understand, Senator. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome. I have a follow up for Director Hashimoto. Sorry, I know you didn't submit testimony on this. Would it be possible for the three positions that they have budgeted to convert to civil.

They can't. It. Well, okay, so it just depends, right? It depends on what they. Absolutely. They can. It just depends on whether we have a class that is compatible. Right. So that we make sure that they're appropriately classified, that we have the right kind of people in the job.

But we do have a number of kind of generic classes of work which we if it's something very specialized, it's we could use like a General professional or a program special specialist. And then we kind of we tailor it to that specific need. So there. There most likely is a civil service answer for that kind of work.

It would just. We just have to be a little bit creative. If those don't work, then we can always establish a new class of work that does specifically meet that need.

And that could also be in your price and compensation study that you could factor in.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any further questions on this? If not, I'll turn it over to Chair Fukunaga.

Okay. Turning to Senate Bill 2824 relating to bribery, we have 57 testimonies in support. However, I don't believe most of these individuals are in the room, so I'm just going to very quickly run through those for whom we believe they're going to be on Zoom from first. Marlene Tom, testifying for Indivisible Hawaii State Word Statewide Network.

Present and Zoom Chair just waiting on them.

Okay, welcome. Please proceed. Miss Tom, please go ahead and testify on Senate Bill 2824.

Yes. Thank you. I was having trouble with my Zoom. Yes. Aloha. Chair Elefante, Chair Fukunaga, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of indivisible Hawaii in strong support of SB 2824.

We believe that this bill will establish a clear duty for public servants to report any known or suspected bribery, such as the alleged case currently being discussed. This bill reinforces ethical standards and helps restore trust in our government. I've submitted written testimony and state. Stand by that. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Please stand by in case Members have questions. Next, we have testifying for Office of Public Defender Haley Cheng. Is Ms. Cheng in. In the room?

Good afternoon, Chair Fukunaga, Chair Elefante, and Members of both committees. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy with the Office of the Public Defender. We did submit testimony in opposition. Our testimony should have been notated at that.

And really, the crux of our concern is criminalizing an affirmative duty to report someone else's poor behavior. And I think we've articulated why that's concerning in our written testimony. And I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2824? Not Members. Any questions? Okay. If not, we'll recess.

Recess.

Thank you everyone, for your patience.

We're reconvening our labor and Technology and Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs. This is our 3pm joint. Joint agenda, I should say. First up for decision making. We're now in decision making. This is Senate Bill 2141. This is relating to allowance on service retirements. Appreciate those that testify.

However, seeing the Attorney General's testimony flagging some constitutional issues and the request for it to be deferred, recommendation is to defer.

Same recommendation for PSM Members. Any questions? If not yes.

Any further discussion on that? If not, thank you. Okay, next up is Senate Bill 2593. This exempts certain positions of Law Enforcement Standards Board from the state Civil service law and collective bargaining.

Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments and we're just gonna defect the date to January 1, 2077 to continue the conversation, seeing that there is positions already in the governor's budget, DHRD and the Law Enforcement Standards Board. If you folks can work together to look at future plans for that, that would be great.

So with that, we're recommending pass with amendments on SB 2593. Chair votes Aye, Vice chair for the vote.

Members voting on SB 2593. Recommendation of the Chair's to pass with amendments noting all Members present and also anyone voting. Sorry. Anyone voting with reservations? Anyone voting no?

Chair. We'll be voting no. I don't really know the structure of. The accepting of the collective bargaining at this time, so I have to vote no. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else voting no? All other Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

For PSM Members same recommendation. Chair will be voting Aye. Vice Chair Lee.

Voting on Senate Bill 2593. Recommendations to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]

I'd like to state that I'm glad that we're moving this measure along and that the issues that we discussed today will continue. Thank you.

[Roll Call] Chair the recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you. For Senate Bill 2824 relating to bribery. This is kind of a novel penalty that is being proposed.

And taking note of some of the concerns raised by the public defender, the Chair would like to recommend that we move it forward to Judiciary Committee for more discussion and pass it with amendments putting in a Defective date of July 1, 2050. Any questions? Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Oh, sorry. Vice Chair.

Recommendation. Excuse me. Voting on SB2824. Recommendations to pass with amendments, noting all present. Are there any reservations or noes? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

For the Committee on Labor and Technology. Same recommendation as PSM to pass with amendments. Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair for the vote. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair.

Voting on SB 2824. Recognition of the Chair's to pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Anyone voting no or reservations? All Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

This concludes our business for today. The joint hearing is adjourned.

Great afternoon everyone. Thank you for your patience. This is our Committee on labor and Technology. We are coming back to vote on a deferred agenda. This is just decision making only. No public testimony will be accepted. We took testimony prior to on these two particular measures. And just a few housekeeping announcements. Today is February 4, 2026.

We're in Conference Room 225 and this hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on February 6, 2026 at 3pm with that Members decision making on Senate Bill 2135. This is relating to privacy.

Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to accept the AG's proposed amendments in their testimony. We're going to use the word disclose to replace the words disseminate. Distribute throughout the contents of the bill for consistency purposes. We're going to accept the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's proposed amendments in their testimony.

We're also going to accept Tech Neck's amendments in their testimony. We're also going to accept motion picture associations proposed amendments in their testimony. Any technical amendments and we're going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077 and with that Members any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao with the vote. Chair votes Aye.

Right. Voting on SB2135. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Voting all Members present. Anyone voting no or reservation? All Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. And then our last item on our deferred agenda is Senate Bill 2115. This is related to collective bargaining. Our Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're going to accept the Hawaii Government Employees Association HGEA proposed amendments in their testimony which we will reduce the 150 day negotiating period with 90 days on page 5, line 18 and reduce the 150 day negotiating period with 90 days on page 5, line 18and insert 10 days within the blank portion of the bill on page seven, line seven.

We're also going to change the effective date to January 1, 2077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes Aye.

Voting on SB 2115. Recognition of the Chairs.

Okay, noting all Members present Chair and also the reservations by Senator Moriwaki. Anyone else voting noes or reservation? All other Members vote Aye. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Reservation for me.

Thank you. That concludes our deferred DM agenda. We will adjourn here and then we will come back for our 3:01 pm agenda version.

Great afternoon everyone.

This is our 3:01pm Regular agenda. Today is Wednesday, February 4, 2026. This is the Committee on Labor and Technology. We are in Conference Room 225. Just a few housekeeping announcements.

This hearing is being streamed on the Hawaii state Senate's YouTube channel and in the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on February 6, 2026 at 3:00pm for all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony.

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

First up on our list is Senate Bill 2273. This is relating to workers compensation. Requires that employers pay for all workers compensation claims for compensable injuries and not deny claims without reasonable cause or during a pending investigation. Creates a presumption of compensability for claims submitted by employees excluded from coverage under the Hawaii Prepaid Healthcare Act.

Requires that employers notify medical services providers of any billing disagreements and allows providers to charge an additional rate to employers for outstanding balances owed for undisputed charges. Establishes dispute resolution procedures for employees and providers who have a reasonable disagreement over charges.

Requires employers to deny a treatment plan within three days of receipt of a treatment plan or the treatment plan is deemed except accepted. First up from DLIR Director Butai, or representative. Thank you for waiting.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senators. Joanne Biddenhar on behalf of the Department, we appreciate the intent of the bill and offer comments seeking clarification on the presumption of compensability and shortened time frames, which may lead to premature denials and increased litigation.

Not included in our testimony, but the depos needs to add is the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that all medical fee dispute decisions are appealable. Therefore, on page five, line seven, the phrase without a hearing should be stricken and replaced with pursuant to section 38687 to clarify that this measure does not eliminate appeal rights.

We respectfully seek clarification to ensure fairness and practical implementation. And thank you for your opportunity to testify. Thank you so much.

Okay, Director Hashimoto.

We'll stand on our written testimony offering comments and concern particularly. With a shortened time frame to respond to treatment plan.

Okay, thank you. Offering comments from DHRD. And we also have Chris Kardizilawa.

Yes, thank you. Hello again, Chair Alfonte, Vice Chair Lamosao. My name is Chris Katslava. I represent Solera Integrated Medical Solutions. We're a payment integrity vendor, a medical payment integrity vendor for insurers, government programs and employers. We're in opposition to SB2273.

I think most we would echo Joanne Biddenhar's comments in that while I think this is very well intentioned and it looks very good on the surface, I think in terms of a practical, you know, working in practice, I think it would actually be detrimental to both the injured worker, the employer and to the provider.

I think the timelines are too short and maybe the motivation for this is more dramatic, driven by, I think, trying to improve the system, which is commendable. But I think that's better done through Senate Bill 2292, which is coming up next.

I believe that I think would get everyone on the same page and decrease a lot of the issues that led to the motivation of draft 2273.

Thank you so much. And then online we have Andrew Branchflower. Aloha. Welcome.

Yes, hi, I'm Andrew, a doctor of physical therapy, 14 years of experience treating and managing work comp claims. Thank you guys for the opportunity to speak on this. I'm in agreement with the previous two testimonies. Some concerns provided multiple written comments on my written testimony for you to review.

But happy to be any support I could be as a subject matter expert.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then we also have Gary Okamura in support. Malia Kiolanui in support. In opposition. Scott Blair Kahmanu Dang Akiona in support. Milia Leong in opposition. Christian Fern in support. Stephanie Donahoe offering comments. Ashley Poland offering comments. Charlie Parker offering comments. Kyle Cabison in support. Carol Ann Orr in support. Kathleen Plaque in support.

That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else that wishes to testify in Senate Bill 2273? If not, Members question? Okay. If not, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2292.

This is relating to workers compensation medical treatment requires the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to establish a medical treatment utilization schedule to standardize treatment for injured work, injured employees involved in workers compensation claims from DLIR. Okay. The LIR in opposition. Thank you. We also have Chris Katslava.

Thank you very much. Chair, my position on.

If you can state your, your name and in your position, please.

Sure. I'm Chris Katslava on behalf of Solera Integrated Medical Solutions. So we support this bill. You know, this ODG and AECOM hasn't come up in many, many, many years, you know, as a solution. But I think, I think implementing some sort of standards for care of the injured worker would be very beneficial to the system.

Some of the requirements of the provider seem onerous and that they have to prove that they're following ODG or ACOM in the treatment. But once they do that, then that treatment is much more easily accepted by the employer because they can measure up against the guidelines. And if, if there's any delta there, they can work it out.

So I think it will be a very positive step. I think there are several bills floating around trying to accelerate timeframes for approvals, but I think it will be more effective to have a set of standards by which approvals could be determined rather than just accelerating the timeframes.

Thank you so much. On Zoom. Nancy Mouldin.

Hello, Chair. I'm in opposition to this bill. My name is Nancy Mondin. I'm a certified nurse case manager with over 30 years insurance company experience and trained in evidence based treatment guidelines long before insurers adopted them. These guidelines fail to account for demographics, age, sex, cultural background and job demands, all of which affect the recovery.

Each injured worker is unique and many do not fit the standard debt guidelines. Just like the standards here in Hawaii. We don't fit everything because of people and lifestyle. Alternative pathways for these guidelines do not exist for those that do not fit the guidelines. These guidelines were intended to support clinical judgment, not replace it.

Yet rigid rules by employer insurance attorneys with no medical training override judgment by physicians if experience a heart attack. Would you choose a guideline or physician? That's all I have to say. But anyway, thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. And then we have Andrew Branchflower on Zoom.

Yes, Andrew. Dr. Physical therapy strongly support this proposition. Yeah, I believe that it will actually improve patient care, decrease costs, improve efficiencies to help employees or injured workers get the care that they need, remove restrictions.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, that completes our list of those that are registered to testify and speak. We also received testimony in opposition from Dr. Gary Okamura Kimani. Lydia K. Dang. In opposition. In support. Stephanie Donahoe. In support. Ashley Poland. Offering comments. Charlie Parker. In support. Dr. Scott J. Miskovich. In opposition. Kyle Cabison. In opposition. Terry Pacheco. In opposition. Erwin Danzer.

In opposition. Stacy Gregory. In opposition. Carol Ann Orr. In opposition. Carl Hodel. In opposition. Stephanie McCafen. In opposition. Kaden Kelly. In opposition. Becky Yoza. In opposition. And support from Michelle R. Stefanak. That completes our list of registered testifiers on SB2292. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? If not Members questions?

If not, we will proceed to our next item on our agenda. Senate Bill 2388. This is relating to public employment. Allows public employers and exclusive representatives of bargaining units to negotiate certain retirement benefits. Director of BNF, Dr. Colby.

Hello. The Department of Hostess.

Okay. BNF in opposition. Thank you. Director Calvert Young, ERS.

Chair. Madam Vice Chair. Senators. So the Board of trustees has not taken an official review of this bill.

However, based on similar measures in recent years and the position that the board has taken previously, the Administration believes that the board would oppose this bill and has provided background and information for those areas of concerns that were reiterated previously in prior years.

The most significant of which is that administering collectively bargained retirement benefits would be in practice, not practical. It would be administrative fatality to public workers and the retirement system plan.

But most seriously would be that such a move would compromise the retirement system's tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Cost Code, which would be catastrophic to retirees and state taxpayers. With that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Director Young, Collect Office of collective bargaining. Mr. Mosto, chief negotiator in opposition. Christian Fern from University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support. Kamakana Kaimuloa UPW.

Well, Chair, Vice Chair Member Kamakana Kaimuloa, United Public Workers. You have a written testimony in strong support of this bill. You know, it's been over a decade since the moratorium on retirement benefit enhancements was established in HRS Section 8899.

And since that time, the Legislature has approved a handful of measures that have slow, slowly degraded post retirement benefits for not only prospective employees, but also workers seeking to return to public the public sector following an extended break in service.

Given the current moratorium, as well as the exclusion of retirement benefits from the scope of contract negotiations, there's very little recourse to address the diminishing value of retirement benefits. And we believe that this bill attempts to adjust that issue you happy to answer any questions?

Thank you. Nuisa Boss stand on testimony support.

Stand on testimony support. That concludes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2388? If not Members questions? If not, we'll move on to our last item on our agenda which is Senate Bill 2460. This is relating to President Private sector collective bargaining rights.

Expands under certain circumstances the types of employees protected by the Hawaii Employee Employment Relations act to include independent contractors and all individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the National labor relations Act of 1935. First up is Deputy Attorney General Gary Kam.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Committee Deputy Attorney General Gary Kam. On behalf of the Department, thank you for allowing us to submit comments.

The Department believes that the garment principle or doctrine of preemption applies in this case to this bill which what that means is that the National Labor Relations act will preempt any enforcement of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kam. Kamakana Kaimuloa UPW.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, United Public Workers. You have a written testimony support. While UPW is largely known as one of Hawaii's largest public sector unions, we also represent approximately 1500 healthcare workers in the private sector.

And given the turmoil that's been happening at the NLRB even though they had appoint the recent appointment, you know, I think there may this may be a time to consider those challenges for those for our workers who may experience difficulties with the employer.

We have been fortunate in the last two years to have, you know, successfully and fairly negotiated contracts for our Members in the private sector. But we will note that we understand that this may create a new burden on HLRB and may have an impact on decisions for the public sector. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you. And then our last person that's on the testifier list is the Chairperson of the Hawaii Labor Relations Board, Dwight Takamine, offering comments. That concludes our list of registered testifiers for SP2460. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure. If not Members questions. If not, we'll do a short recess.

Good afternoon.

We're reconvening our 301pm agenda. We are now in decision making. Chair is going to recommend for our first item Senate Bill 2273 related to workers compensation recommendation here is to defer seeing that there was some serious concerns and comments that were raised from some of the agencies. Our next item is Senate Bill 2292.

This is relating to workers compensation medical treatment. Chair noting the opposition from dlir. Recommendation is to defer. For our next Item, Senate Bill 2388 relating to public employment. Hearing the testimony from Budget and Finance and Office of Collective Bargaining and also from. Mr. Young. Chair is going to recommend that we defer.

And then our last item is Senate Bill 2460 relating to private sector collective bargaining rights. Hearing testimony from Horizon AG's office. And being that we might be preempted by federal law on this, Chair's going to recommend that we defer. That concludes our agenda items for today. There being no further business, we are adjourned.