House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, February 4th, 2:00pm in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas, chair of the Committee. We have Vice Chair Mahina Koikoi here and Members Elle Cochran and also Garner Shimizu. Other Members are watching from their office or will be here presently. Thank you to everyone for being here today.

We'll try to get through this agenda so you can get back to work and not have to be here in the Capitol because you have plenty of other things to do. So we will endeavor to move through our hearing today thoroughly and expeditiously. Let me just read this to those who haven't been around before in this Committee.

I'd like to, with some exceptions, I'd like to keep testimony to about two minutes. But if you're a Brandon Kimura and you have to describe the whole budget. You get more time. We've recently upgraded the microphone and sound system in this room so the microphones are there. Those two panels in the ceiling that are bright green.

That's your microphone. So when you're standing at the rostrum speaking, you can use your outside voice. That way you can project and there is slight amplification in the room and it picks up all the sounds that are made in the room, including clicking pens, whispering to your neighbor.

All that is picked up and it goes onto the live stream and onto YouTube. So keep that in mind. So those who are testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify, and then turn it off again when your testimony is complete. If you have any issues, use your chat function.

Talk to the best IT staff in the building who's right here in our room helping us out. If you're disconnected, don't panic, try to rejoin us and I'll try to fit you in as soon as we can.

If the power goes off in the building, which happens, we may have to cancel the meeting and reschedule and we will post appropriate notice so you'll all know when you're on Zoom. Please avoid using trademarked or copyrighted images.

It kicks us off of YouTube and we don't want that to happen because we want everyone to see your smiling faces when you're testifying, when you're speaking. If you could do it in a way that your auntie would feel comfortable with unless she uses salty language, you know, please don't use profanity and no uncivil behavior.

As I say, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're here to do things to help out this wonderful state, its people and its environment. So with that, let's move into our hearing today. First up, we have House Bill 2095 relating to the Judiciary.

This appropriates supplemental monies for the Judiciary for the fiscal biennium beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2027. First up, we have Mr. Brandon Kimura, the Judiciary. Please join us at the rostrum and floor.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Brandon Kimura, Administrative Director of the Courts. With me today is Deputy Administrative Director of the Courts Dalyn Heather and Members of our Administration and Oahu and Big Island administrators from the Judiciary. So thank you very much for hearing the measure.

I'm here to testify in strong support of House Bill 2095, the Judiciary Supplemental budget. I will describe briefly our budget requests and I'm certainly going to be happy to be around for questions. Overall, we are seeking supplemental funding in the amount of 6.4 million. We are certainly mindful of the state's fiscal circumstances and uncertainty.

We've taken that seriously into context, into consideration as we finalized and adjusted downward our budget requests over recent months, and we believe that this amount is appropriate under the circumstances that I'll get into.

For each of our specific requests, in addition to the funding, we will be requesting four permanent full time positions, which are actually conversions, so a reduction of three temporary positions and one special Fund. Position operating requests are in three General categories, Critical security resources, critical services to court users, and critical staffing resources.

Our first request under the critical security resources, and this accounts for more than half in dollars of our supplemental request is 3.25 million for supplemental armed private security for judiciary facilities statewide. This would be to secure the perimeters.

This is a request for supplemental Protective Services in addition to the Department of Law Enforcement, which currently staffs our facilities. And we appreciate deeply we are seeking this Fund, these funds because try as they might, despite best efforts, the DLE deputies, they simply do not have enough personnel to be at our buildings all day every day.

Insufficient number. We've had a number of incidents over the years, including at our front entrances, and this would primarily help us to secure our front entrances.

Our second request under the security umbrella is additional funds for cyber security in the amount of little under 200,000 and a transfer of position is a reduction of a special fund and an additional of a permanent position for an identity Security architect and an information security architect which would build out our CyberSecurity team.

Since December 1, 2025 we've had over a million high risk security attacks and we've had over 100,000 of those were classified as high risk security, which means that if they had gotten through, they would have compromised our systems, taking them down or worse.

There are jurisdictions across the country, court systems in Georgia and Pennsylvania and LA Superior Court federal courts where cyber attacks have caused significant either damage or outages or both. And we would seek these resources to ensure continuity of service. In the category of critical services to court users, we have two requests.

One is a restoration of funding of purchase of service contracts for substance use treatments to pre Covid levels. This is a request of about 575,000.

Since these funds were reduced early in Covid due to the state's financial circumstances at the time, we have been getting by, if you will, with the reduced amount of funding we we've had to transfer funds from one contract to another and back and forth.

And that has caused delays in terms of the provision of services which has had a detrimental impact on the clients and the probationers who've gone for periods of time without treatment, which we like to avoid.

And unfortunately during those periods some of them have reoffended, which is of course something we deeply want to avoid for the community as well. And so restoration of these funds would help with continuity for the clients, for the court cases, for the individuals. And we also acknowledge wonderful partners in the service providers with the reduction of funding.

We believe and understand that has had a significant impact on the providers across the state. Well across the state, this request I guess is in particular a first circuit on Oahu. But we acknowledged the impact to providers and this would allow them to rebuild capacity and be more sustainable for the long term. So we make that request.

Our second and final request for in the services to court users category is restoration of funds for the Office of Public Guardian. Last year a position in this office on Kauai was vacant during session and that was defunded. It's a part time position. It is the only position in the Office of Public Guardian on Kauai.

And so without funding for that, we've had to provide those services with OPG personnel from Oahu, Office of Public Guardian personnel from Oahu, from the Maui, from Maui and Big Island over months that has impacted the wards on Kauai and has also impacted wards in the rest of the state because their guardian has been traveling to Kauai to serve in the critical staffing resources.

We have three requests. The first is to implement the recommendations of the commission on salaries that were across the board for the three branches and public officials. Last session, the Legislature funded the amounts that were necessary for FY26, but not FY27. So this request is simply for that exact amount.

The second is to restore funding for and convert a position on the big island in Kona from temporary to permanent. And we're going to redescribe it to a port operations specialist. This is one of the many positions that was defunded early in the pandemic, Again due to the financial circumstances.

And since that time, we have come back year over year very, very delicately and very thoughtfully requesting funds, a restoration of funds only when we need it. And when we do so, it's only for a modern need. So at the time, the position that was defunded was a fiscal Clerk.

And one way or another, our office has found a way to make it work which credit to them. Right now what we're seeking is a more modern need of a court operations specialist which will have the flexibility to continue to help the fiscal office because they do have an incredible volume of work and it's growing in complexity.

And they will also be able to do work outside of that area. Most specifically at this point would be helping with the logistics of scheduling due to the increase in court interpreters in Kona. Last staffing resources request and the last operating request would be a no cost conversion of two positions from temporary to permanent.

And our court appointed special advocates unit on Oahu. These are positions that work with youth and families who are going through a very difficult time. These are the special advocates, Whether it's foster care or other things.

And while temporary to permanent or temporary positions, anywhere in government or anywhere in state, government provides some challenges with recruitment and retention and stability of services. Those concerns are especially highlighted here where particularly due to the nature of their work and they're serving youth and families who are already in very unstable situations. We seek to request.

We seek to change these positions from temporary to permanent. And that would be a no cost conversion. Switching down to our capital improvement project requests, we have five, for a total of 55.4 million. The first and highest priority request that we have is for construction. Construction funds for a new courthouse in South Kohala.

We appreciate the Legislature's funding of $4 million in design funds last session and we're now here to request construction funds of 30 million. The courthouse in South Kohala is quaint. It is. It served its purpose. It is deeply outdated and unfortunately not able to keep up with the needs of A modern courthouse.

We have significant concerns for security. We have concerns for safety. We have six employees who are sitting in very, very close quarters nearly on top of each other. We have concerns due to the weather and the noise. We can hear helicopters, the rain, which as chair Tarnas knows is going sideways.

And without much rain blockage, people who are standing outside waiting to go in because we don't have an entry and foyer get wet quite often. The security needs are I think, perhaps most concerning. We do not have a cell block there.

We have jealousy windows in our courtroom which were open for a time and now we've closed them. We have jealousy windows in our judges chambers. The defendants who are in custody share a restroom with Members of the public. We have significant safety concerns and appreciate consideration for that. Good afternoon for the new.

Our second and third CIP requests are for 1.2 million each for upgrading and replacement of air conditioning equipment in Hilo and Kauai. These for now, knock on Woody's pieces of equipment are still working okay, but they're nearing end of life.

And based on our experience ordering AC equipment in other parts of the state producer facilities, the lead time is over a year. So it's deeply concerning to us as these reach end of life and we do not want our facilities to be without that because that would be significant disruption to court services and others.

Fourth request is an additional $15 million for upgrading our elevators at Kahumanu Hale. This is in downtown or Punchbowl Street, Honolulu. These elevators also pose safety concerns as dozens of folks have gotten stuck throughout. There are outages frequently, which impacts members of the public who get stuck. It impacts judges, it impacts staff.

This is a very busy courthouse.

While elevator challenges are sure, you know, no stranger to folks in this building and other parts of the state, we are especially concerned because the nature of the business that we have in our buildings, you know, people who ride the elevators together may be okay for 30 seconds if you are on other side of the case or if you're a victim or a witness or survivor.

But if you get stuck in here and there for an extended period, that can be very, very concerning. If not in actual physical security, can certainly impact how people feel about their court experience and about other engaging with the process. Lastly, on our CIP requests is a request for 8 million in lump sum bond funds.

These lump sum bond funds are used to address sort of emerging emergent projects throughout the state. Some examples are we are starting to look at these for planning funds for photovoltaic on Kauai and in Kona and Hilo, actually, in response to some comments from fellow House Members.

And we're also looking at other things for the Children's Justice Center and various things. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Carrera. Thank you for staying around for questions. And let's finish up the testimony next. We have written testimony and support from Partners in Development Foundation. We also have testimony from parents and Children together. Ryan Kusumoto, could you come up and just give us your highlights?

Why do you think it's important enough for you to testify? Sorry, you have to. Everyone has to get out. But I want people to know who you are.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. And the Members of the Committee. I'm Ryan Kusumoto, President CEO of Parents and Children Together. We stand in support of this bill. We are partners with the judiciary. And as the previous speaker just mentioned, we are one of the. We are one of the POS providers. Who do purchase of service.

Service. Yeah. We don't use acronyms in the hearing so that we want the public to understand what we're saying here. So thank you for accommodating me.

Yeah, we. My apologies. We provide services mainly for us, mainly in the domestic violence sector and some of the mandated services in partnership with the judiciary. And we support the budget. There is line items for increases in particular line items. And we are supportive to be able to do that work in the community.

That's great. Thank you very much. Appreciate your good work. And last person who said they wish to testify, Melissa Pavisek.

Aloha. I'm here today on behalf of the True Cost Coalition. And we're testifying in support of this bill as well as another one later in the agenda.

But specifically to this one, I want to point out an appropriation of $574,716 which would restore funding for purchase of service contracts in the First Circuit Court and for substance use disorder treatment for adult probationers on Oahu.

30% of the true Cost Coalition Members would be affected by this budget line item and it would restore funding to pre Covid levels or something like that. But just wanted to underscore that we really appreciate the collaboration with the Judicia and look forward to weighing in later on this agenda. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom wishing to testify on House Bill 2095? Seeing none. Let's go to questions. Members questions. Representative Shimizu and then Representative Cochran. Question from Shimizu. If you could project Your voice. I got comments. They couldn't hear you. Okay. Sorry about that.

Thank you for your testimony. Very, very well stated. I definitely support Judiciary's mission and the need for additional funds. I just wanted to get some additional information just for my benefit and specifically for your CIP, like the chillers, just. Because I'm kind of annoying that way. The age of the chillers.

And you have a lump sum request for the 8 million. Could you. Could you itemize that for me?

Sure. Thank you, Representative.

It doesn't have to be done at this right now, at this moment, but I think that would be helpful just for my understanding.

Yeah. Perhaps you could send me a list of the. What the lump sum. Your thoughts are on use of the lump sum and I can share it with the Committee.

Sure, absolutely. For the lump sum.

Thank you, Representative and Chair, for the questions for the lump sum, we have some things that I'll certainly share with Chair for the Committee. I'll just elaborate briefly that the. Somewhat of the intent of the lump sum is that it allows us a little bit of flexibility for the remaining. Is something that comes up.

But some of the things that we have in mind, specifics, I'll certainly share. Understood.

My question is not to justify it. Just for my information. Absolutely. Also, the elevators, the number of cabs and floors that we're talking about, 15 million seems like a pretty high number. I just want to wrap my brain around. Sure.

There are nine elevators. We have received funding from the Legislature earlier, which we deeply appreciate, and that will go towards the first portion. The first will be this is a project that DAGs manages for us so we communicate and sort of understand the situation from them.

The earlier funding will go towards the first five elevators, which are four public elevators and an elevator that we use to transport custody defendants up and down.

And the funding that we're requesting now are for the remaining four elevators, which would be the private elevators for staff and judges and things, so that they don't need to circulate and use the custody elevator or the. Or the public elevators when they're building. How many floors is that? This is four floors.

Or does it go down to the basement? So five. So B. Five. All nine go at five.

So just to clarify, the 15 million is for four stacks, five floors each? Yes, and I was noticing that, you know, it's noted design, and I was just thinking, why is there a design when it's just a replacement?

That's a good question. Thank you, Representative. In terms of how DAGs characterizes it, I think there are Technical aspects of that. We are, as I think we're talking about sort of late in the project because we've already received funds and put some of that into play. DAGs has a firm sense of where they're headed next.

As a non design professional, I will certainly need to get back to you as to why they use the word design. But I understand the questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

If you could just share with me details about the CIP budget. I know Representative Shimizu has a particular interest in the budget and the cip, so any details you could provide to me, I'll share with the Committee and that would be very helpful as we make our case with the Finance Committee to support your requests.

Thank you. That'd be great. If I could. Yes. Clarify briefly, you had a question about the age of the chillers. Was that the current age of the two chillers? Is that where your question is? Okay. Okay, we'll do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

While you're at it, can you also provide a breakdown of the POS services? Again? It's just. Just I need to learn more about what's going on and I appreciate the. The help.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative. Representative Cochran.

Thank you, Chair. And you probably tell me what's not in. In this measure. But for Mr. Kimura, I noticed and thank you for the service and the monies that you're asking for because it's definitely needed. But I notice every county has CIP, but not Maui County.

So if my, my question is, are we up to par? We don't need any improvements anywhere because we're like right on.

Thank you for the question and that's very kind. We are looking at for Ho', Opilihale, which is our main courthouse in Maui. We are. It's a years long initiative and we're currently continuing to sort of plan internally and with DAGs as to the future of that facility.

That facility, similar to Kahumanu Hale and Kawaki Oli Hale and Honolulu are roughly 40 years old or so. And so we're planning internally and with DAGs as to what next steps are.

Okay, very good. Thank you for that.

That was a very germane question.

Okay. Okay, good.

Thank you very much, Representative. I appreciate you representing Maui. That's very important. Any other questions on the budget? I do have a question to follow up on the 3.25 million for the armed private guards. Could you briefly describe your conversations with the Department of Law Enforcement?

Clearly in my mind, for example, and I'll talk to Department of Law Enforcement independently It's more important for the sheriffs to be guarding the courts than it is to be doing traffic enforcement.

Have you talked to Director Lambert about, you know, priorities of deployment since they are having challenges to recruit and retain officers just in terms of deploying those that they do have? Are courts security, of course, identified as a priority or is it just not getting the personnel that you need?

Thank you, Chair, for the question. And I should thank Director Lambert. He's been a great partner in this. He has an extraordinarily difficult job and position and Department circumstances in terms of personnel. He's been a great partner. Our conversations with him about priorities have been focused on what we need in our courts.

We've acknowledged that he has other areas of whether it's traffic or fireworks or other things. We have not at all suggested that he take away from those areas and bring to the courts. Okay.

It's just, it's sort of as a reality we have, you know, when we have a couple fewer deputies in a building one day and that's the same day that these other things. So we don't, we don't haven't discussed with him sort of deprioritizing other missions.

Probably the most focused discussion was on a measure a year or two ago that would have sort of more explicitly stated in statute that the DOE's mission is to protect the corporation in the capital and the Governor.

That was again, not directed at deprioritizing any other aspect of his mission, but really reinforcing the mission, as has been for decades, for not only Deale, but the predecessor agency.

Okay. I would like to make sure the judiciary can get the security you need at your courthouses. And I would like to help Department of Law Enforcement meet their needs, which is to, you know, have the ability to recruit and retain sheriffs. You're asking for 3.25 million. They're asking for money.

I'm trying to see if there's a way we can work together to achieve both.

So I look forward to that conversation with you and Director Lambert to see if we can come up with something because the Legislature might be able to ask for things that one agency, one branch of government feels inappropriate to ask another branch of government. Absolutely.

And we support their efforts, including the measures this session for retention bonus. Our request here. And again, we appreciate their partnership. Our request here is we need additional personnel in our buildings now. Now. And he's, that is a, is a, I think a south, you know, good long term plan for him and his apartment.

And it's, you Know, part of it is, you know, that takes time to implement. The academy takes time to implement all those things. So I recognize that.

But that's, that's part of the budget that I think I want to see if we can do something with. But it's between both DLE and judiciary. I think Repelati has a question, so I'll go over to you now.

Thank you. And I apologize for being late. Mr. Kimura. The purchase of service contract request of 574,000 for substance abuse treatment beds, I'm.

Assuming that ask there's a mix of residential and non residential.

Okay. So my question is I see that it's going to be a restoration of a previous reduction. And I don't know if you can answer this or if you have some staff might be able to answer it, but do you folks expend all of those funds when you're given it?

Those funds? I would say generally yes. And the answer, the more detailed answer is the impetus for the request.

So we have at the beginning of the year we will sort of allocate a certain amount for various contracts, different kinds of services or different providers to build not only flexibility but resiliency and backup fuel for different kinds of services as the year goes on because we have less funds available and it's smaller amounts for each of these providers for each of these types of services as the year goes on and some of those run out of money or get close to running out of money operationally we need to share with staff, stop referring people to that either provider or that kind of service.

We are, we do have flexibility to move funds around. So when there's an underutilized contract that year, then we can shift funds from one to the other, which we acknowledge is not good for the provider. They need to, you know, if they're underutilized now, they're probably not going to be underutilized next year.

And so that doesn't hurt that we acknowledge the impact on the provider. But we have to shift funds because we need funds in another contract for another provider.

And what often happens is that for the next year we'll need to shift Fund funds back because again, the provider that was perhaps underutilized is utilized to a higher degree this year. So we're shifting it back and the shifting leads to a delays which is the impetus for this.

Okay. And then are these programs the things that are in fact where you're moving people under your custody into community based programs? So like is it the Act 26? Does this help Fund some of the Act 26 movement of people, if I'm getting the number correct.

What I want to make sure is that you folks have the resources for the community based service programs for the people who are under your custody and care and that we are moving people into it because I know that the Department of Health sits on contracts that service some of the same people sometimes when they cross over.

And there's a lot of underutilization of contracts in the Department of Health. So if we know that you guys are utilizing the monies, well, I want to make sure we're getting you folks the monies.

Thank you, President, for the question. I'll check on the programs. I think these are primarily the General probation and the specialty courts over in circuit court. I'll need to circle back with you and respond, if that's okay, as to the number of the kinds of programs that these are used for in district court.

And I guess the other thing is, as we add money to it, because that's what you're asking for is like addition of this reduction.

If the service providers under your contracts are able to provide services and you guys are putting people in those beds and treatment programs, let's keep doing that because then that's getting them the care that they need.

And that actually helps in my other jurisdiction in the prisons because those are the people who are flowing in and out of prison to the state hospital and then being released back into community.

And everyone's saying that we don't have money, but it looks like based on the fact that you guys are using it, you guys have some treatment opportunities.

Believe so.

Okay.

So I, I asked Mr. Kimura to get us a list of the purchase of service providers and then I can share that with the Committee so we'd be able to see exactly what's going on.

Okay, thank you for indulging because I think we're hearing in our Committee. Right. That these folks are flowing in and out of, out of the system and not getting the help they need.

I will elaborate 1.0 if it may, is that, you know, as we add up the amounts for the providers at the end of the year, if you will, it's different from living in the moment because at the end of, you know, end of January, when our folks are sharing, when our fiscal folks are sharing with the probation officers, this contract is running low.

You need to start slowing down your referrals. That conversation and that dynamic and the impact on the probationer and the provider is not reflected at the, you know, June 30th. This is the amount expended. So it's having an operational impact regardless of the financial piece.

Yeah. So you're reducing your utilization in order to spread that remaining balance you have over the remaining time you have. So, yeah. If you could help us understand that. Sure. Better, then we can better advocate for you.

Thank you. And that's why I began the answer to your question of. Mostly because it's not just reflected in the simple end of your balances, it's operational.

Lawyers never answer things easily. So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? Okay, last question. You know, you're talking about the security, lack of security. Does it affect your operations where you. Have to, like, delay things because you don't have proper security?

Yes. We have had closures due to lack of deputy sheriffs. We closed Wahiawa District Court two weeks ago for the afternoon. And.

Related operations and your interest in CIP. Representative, we've had to delay court hearings with people when judges get stuck in elevators.

And that's important information to know. So we can advocate saying, hey, if you want the judiciary to do their job, we've got to provide them the funds.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Members. Thank you, Mr. Camara.

Thank you to all the testifiers on this first measure. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2094 relating to jury duty. This measure increases the amount each juror or prospective juror is paid for each day of actual attendance at court, and it appropriates funds. First up, we have Haley Chang with the Office of Public Defender.

Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy from the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in support of this measure. We also supported this measure last session as well.

And really, just as a practitioner and a trial attorney who utilizes juries and knows how critical jury service is to the orderly functioning of our system, we truly ask for your support of this measure. It is a nominal increase.

But as somebody who does jury trials, and I can tell you that one of the biggest hardships for our jurors is the financial sacrifice.

We recognize that financial sacrifice is probably part of your civic duty in order to serve jury service, but it can make a big difference, especially when we have trials that last beyond a few days. The last trial that I had lasted almost seven weeks, and for those jurors, that was definitely a financial hardship.

So we stand in strong support, and I will be available for any questions.

And thank you very much. Next we have Dean Hiraki from the Judiciary. Welcome, sir. Floor is yours.

Afternoon, Chair Tarnes. Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Dean Hiraki. I'm the Deputy Chief Poet Administrator for the Tourist Circuit Hawaii Island. I'm here representing the State of State judiciary on House Bill 2094, which increases the pay from $30 to $50. The last. The last increase was back in 1989.

And we, like Mr. Chen said, it's a nominal increase. You know, it doesn't replace loss of income. But we wanted to provide an additional, you know, funding for prospective jurors because they do play a major role in our judicial system. System. Also in the bill, we're asking for $684,385 for the increase, for the increase of the $3.

And thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I'll be available for you thank you very much.

Appreciate that, Mr. Hiraki. Next we have Mr. Daniel Hugo. Welcome back. Good to see you again, sir. From the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney's office, please receive.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And I'm very happy to support this measure. There's almost nothing I like better going to court than seeing a jury. I wish I could convey to this Committee how conscientiously and well so many of our jurors form their public service.

Oftentimes they have to hear extremely hard cases and make decisions that only they can make and bear that moral burden and responsibility. And like this room, a jury represents the essential principle of self government, that we are the ones who are responsible for our own laws.

But for juries to work, just like for democracy to work, a jury must be representative. And unfortunately, too many of our jurors face financial hardships. And those financial hardships fall disproportionately on people who depend on hourly wages, on people who are caregivers, and on vulnerable Members of our community.

The increase here is not even reflective of inflation, and it's not going to solve that. But it does at least align with the federal standard, which is one small step that we can take when we go to court. Tradition, for everyone to stand for the judge.

The judge stands for only one set of people, and that's the jury. And our respect for jury should be more than symbolic. And this bill, this bill takes one small step towards that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hugo. And finally, we have Mr. Kagimida, an individual with written testimony in support. Is there anyone else here on Zoom that wishes to testify on House Bill 2094? Not questions. Members seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll go on to the next measure.

House Bill 1528, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges. It would change it from 70 to 75. First up, we have former judge Kim. Mr. Kim. Welcome, sir. Representing the judiciary and speaking from a life of experience.

Yes, I'm the poster child. Chairman, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm speaking on behalf of the judiciary. The judges and the judiciary strongly support this measure. I know we've tried it before, but in order to have an effective judiciary, we need to have seasoned, effective judges that have experience.

When judges enter the bench, they have to learn how to become a judge. And in their best years, many judges are being let go by an arbitrary number. 7. 0. This also affects women because they live longer than men. And so it's a sort of form of discrimination.

My term as a judge ends November of 2027, but I had to stop because of this constitutional prohibition in continuing as a judge. Many judges and justices end their careers because of this, and they're at their peak.

You may ask, well, what mechanisms are in place that can assure the public that if a judge is disabled, either mentally or physically, that there are mechanisms to remove that judge? And there are mechanisms. The Commission on Judicial Conduct is empowered to investigate and to make findings to the Supreme Court.

And under the Constitution, the Hawaii Supreme Court has the ability to remove judges or suspend judges for mental or physical disability. So those safeguards are already there.

By extending this retirement age by five years, you're going to help the judiciary as well as the Senate as well as the Judicial Selection Committee, because we won't have delays in finding new judges. And quite frankly, there are a lot of attorneys in their 60s who are in their prime.

They have the experience, they have the knowledge, but they're not going to apply because they know that they can't finish out their term. I know that this august body has supported these type of measures in the past. I believe in past years, it was 80 years, 75, we feel is a sweet spot.

And we'll do everything in our power to coordinate with other entities, such as the Hawaii State Bar Association and other groups to be able to articulate the reasons why to the public, because this, this measure only allows the voters to make the decision, and it has not passed in the past.

But we feel that it's the right time. And I want to echo what the prosecutor said. Democracy right now depends on a strong judiciary. They are not an agency. The judiciary is the third branch of government. And quite frankly, we need the support here. We need the support now. And this measure will strengthen our judiciary.

I stand to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Judge Kim. Next we have Haley Chang, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon. Again, the Office of the Public Defender support supports this measure and from the practitioner perspective, as the agency that appears in front of judges at all levels, at district, circuit, family and at the appellate levels.

We are supportive of this because we have seen too many times judges, as Judge Kim referenced in their prime, who are forced into retirement. We believe there are appropriate safeguards to monitor the judges as they.

But we have not seen that be an issue, an overwhelming issue that would preclude the majority of the judiciary from serving until the age of 75. I would also like to highlight one other thing. The institutional knowledge and experience that a judge brings to the bench often takes years to develop.

We see that in practice and sometimes it takes a longer time for them to really settle in and get used to what they're doing in their role. And it is a shame to see some of them leave way before their time.

I also think this measure is important because we want attorneys to practice longer and be experienced and qualified before they apply to be judges. We are now seeing individuals apply younger and younger and younger, and we do believe there's a lot of qualified people.

But I think most would agree that experience, bringing your experience to the bench makes you a better jurist. And we also want to leave that pathway open for people to practice longer and not feel like it's a race to get to the bench.

So for those reasons, we stand in strong support and I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have United Public Workers Kamakana Kaimuloa, testimony and support. Next we have Kat Brady, Community alliance on prisons and support. Ms. Brady, welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha. Pat Brady testifying for Community Alliance on Prisons on behalf of 3,654 people who are incarcerated by Hawaii, 799 of whom are serving their sentences in Arizona. We think this is a really, really important issue right now. What's happening at the Federal Government is all about the rule of law that's sort of being cast aside.

So we really want judges who have experience who understand the rule of law. And I heard at the judiciary hearing that they feel the community doesn't really understand this.

So Community Alliance on Prison is going to do a full court press to educate people because we think this is really, really important, especially with what's going on at the Federal Government. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Appreciate it very much. Ms. Brady, we've received written testimony with comments from the American Judicature Society from James, testimony support from James Lindblad, and testimony support from Lynn Akatsupka and Kerryanne Shirota, and testimony and opposition from Cindy Freitas. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 1528? Oh, there you are, Carrie Ann.

Here, I just read your name and there you are. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair appointed by Committee Members. Carrie Ann Chibota, community Member and a Member of the Claim State Bar. I'm here in strong support of this constitutional amendment.

I think this is going to be a year that we're going to pass this and let the voters decide, as pointed out by Judge here, this number of 70 is arbitrary. And we don't have a mandatory retirement for other professions.

We don't require the dentists at the age of 70, if they're still practicing, need to retire, or doctors for that matter. And I'm from the island of Maui, and I can tell you that there is a complete shortage of doctors and it's difficult to find.

And so there was one pediatrician that worked beyond 70 because he's helping to care for my nieces and nephews. And so we need to take a look at not having an arbitrary number. And I know it's been implied that this is discrimination. It might be. It is. We have Hawaii Revised Statute 378.

I previously worked for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission as an enforcement attorney enforcing our fair housing, fair employment laws. And we did not have an age requirement.

Essentially, if any other profession or job, people come forth and say, I was terminated, I wasn't hired because I now turn 70 years old, that person could file a complaint in both state Civil Rights Commission or the eeoc. And so we need to be consistent in recognizing that that number was based upon an outdated period of time.

People are living longer. People in Hawaii live longer than any other states. And we need to acknowledge the wisdom experience of our judges. So I humbly ask that you pass this measure. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Yes, please go ahead.

Aloha, Angela. Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in favor of this bill with a proposed Amendment to page four, line 19 to extend it to 80 years. Bear is 83. Thank you. Yes.

And so raising the age is a strategy to prevent seasoned judges from being forced off the bench or to avoid shifts in ideologies of the court. If the court is going in that direction, then everything goes in that direction.

Verdicts, rulings, overturns and interpretations, prisoners to be punished to the fullest extent of the law as sentenced by the presiding judge. You know, the judge gets to make that decision. So keeping a judge as long as possible results in stability in the court system and consistency in rulings when everything goes in one direction under the presiding judge.

And so I don't know what it's like to be an attorney, but I am going to be studying law and taking my LSAT soon and hopefully getting into the JD Flex program program.

Thank you. So I wish you the best.

Yes, I'm, you know, making friends with the attorneys and learning about the judges, my court system.

Thank you for your testimony.

Strong favor. Thank you.

Thank you. Very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not. Questions, Members? Yes, Representative Garcia, thank you.

Chair, for Judgekin. Yes, thank you, sir, for being here and thank you for your service to our state. Question, do you have an estimate of. Of how many judges we are about. To lose in, in the next few years due to this arbitrary cutoff age?

Not at my fingertips, but I can provide that information to the chair. I will tell you that in recent past, Judge Crabtree, he had to, he met that threshold. My former judge, Ronald Ibarra, after serving many years, he also hit 70 and he retired. I just want to kind of digress just for a second, briefly.

Just, you know, Judge Ibarra retired at 70 and at 77, he was appointed by the Governor and he volunteered to do some work for Lahaina in administering that 1.5 million. And so we do have skills, as Liam Neeson says. But I will get the Chair.

Thank you. Please do. Please do. And we did. Our Chief justice had to retire because of reaching that mandatory age as well. Thank you. Other questions, Members.

Members, I would remind you as well that was, it was mentioned there was a vote on this, I think, in 2014, is that correct, where it was to increase the age of constitutional amendment put on the ballot to increase the age to 80. Mandatory retirement. 70 plus percent voted against it.

So we're trying again and we're going for 75 this time. So that's, that's our strategy. Okay, if there's no other questions, let's move on to the next bill. Thank you to all the testifiers. Next bill, House Bill 2090 relating to domestic abuse orders for protection.

This measure removes the requirement that requests to withhold from public inspection the petition record of a denied temporary restraining order or a denied protective order be made orally. First up, we have Scott Boone with the Judiciary.

Sir, floor is yours. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Good afternoon, Vice Chair. Put Committee Members. My name is Scott Boone. I am a Staff Attorney for the FAM Court of the First Circuit. I'm here representing the judiciary on this package bill, and we stand our honor, written testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee has.

Could you highlight why this is important that we pass this bill?

From my perspective, Chair, this just eliminates a loophole in the recently passed act gives flexibility to domestic abuse survivors to file their motion both written and orally, both at the temporary restraining order stage as well as the order for protection stage.

So it would help those who are filing the orders. Correct. Chair Got it. Okay, thank you very Much and thanks for sticking around for questions. Next, Ms. Mercado with the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Welcome back. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence here representing our 20 Member programs who provide domestic violence services, shelter, and are also our ally partners.

And so I stand on our written testimony and will also clarify why this is very important for our survivors who are going through the family court system and petitioning for domestic violence protective orders.

Or really where the genesis of this act came from a couple of years ago is the fact that what we have seen is that survivors may be receiving retaliatory protective orders.

So their abusive partner may be retaliating against them for some reason, whether it could be they've taken out a protective order against them or in child custody matters, for instance. And so what happens is that the courts will have, there will be a protective order petition against a survivor perhaps.

And then the courts will say will not find a, will not make a judgment. They won't grant the temporary restraining order. And so, but it'll still show up. You can look at ECORT Kokua and find this ripple effects in the, in the survivor's life, inability to get a job.

Maybe it comes up in a custody hearing or something of that nature. And so the intention of this measure is for the survivor to make a request of the judge to actually restrict this particular petition and the decision from public viewing accessible to law enforcement as necessary.

The problem is when you have an ex parte petition, it's the four corners of the paper that the judges are looking at and there isn't an actual hearing. So the judge will receive this. So there is no actual opportunity for a survivor to actually make a request.

And then we get to the second section that this measure looks at. It's 586.5.5. And this happens when, okay, TRO has been granted, but then parties show up for, in order to show cause hearing, and then the judge does not grant the protective order.

In that instance, a survivor could ask that the record be restricted from public view.

But if it doesn't happen, and the only availability is for that to happen through an oral request for whatever reason, you leave the courtroom, they've moved on to the next, next case, then you don't have a mechanism by which to go to the courts to request.

Technically you have a motion, but the statute does not allow for a written motion to be considered. So that's why we are in support of this measure, we're just making this available to survivors as it was truly intended a couple years ago.

Very good. Thank you for that explanation. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2090?

Yes, Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of CARES so in strong favor of this domestic abuse order protection law allowing written requests to seal denied TROs or protective orders in Hawaii Family Court protects individuals from unwarranted long term public exposure of sensitive personal details contained in unsuccessful and often ex parte one sided petitions.

So the procedural change specifically protects individuals and their privacy. Thank you. So to improve the lives of all the citizens that have to go through the family court process, I think this would be very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And for those who are giving testimony orally and you didn't tell us you were doing it, if you can, make sure you give your name to Kamana over here on our Vice Chair staff so we can have that information for the record. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2090?

If not questions Members seeing none. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2088 relating to adoptions. This measure adds the requirement that a written consent to adoption be notarized. First up, we have Department of Human Services. Introduce yourself. You're clearly not Director Yamane.

I am not. Aloha Vice Chair Members of I am Eladine Oliva. I am here representing the Department of Human Services. We stand on our testimony in support and will be available for any questions.

Could you just briefly describe why you think this bill is important?

I think it helps to kind of confirm the intent of the parent by them indicating under notary that they are in agreement with the proceedings the adoption.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Pleasure to meet you. Mr. Boone, the judiciary. If you could explain why this is a good bill.

Afternoon, Chair. Let's share Committee Members again. Scott Boone, Staff Attorney Representative, Judiciary on this package bill, in a nutshell, this just eliminates a potential concern.

I haven't observed this concern in actual cases, but we feel that it's a good preventative measure to require that individuals who are providing their consent to an adoption actually have that written consent notarized and otherwise. We stand on our written testimony. Happy to answer any questions on this bill.

Okay, thank you very much. You specifically say by adding the requirement that written consents to adoption be notarized, it will help to prevent the possibility of fraudulent consents. So I think that was just an important sentence that others I just want to make sure they saw that in your testimony. Thank you, Chair, for that clarification. Yeah.

Thank you. It's your words. I just appreciate that everyone could benefit from hearing it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2088, please go ahead.

Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in strong favor of the Uniform Probate Code and the sealing of the medical records to enhance privacy policies. So with this policy, it can help to modernize, simplify and standardize complex state laws governing wills, trusts and estate Administration, and it streamlines the process.

This is about getting adoption sent notarized. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2088? If not questions, Members seeing none, we will move on to the next measure. Thank you very much. To the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 2097. And this is.

Relating to administrative driver's license revocation Authorizes administrative driver's license revocation hearings to be conducted using interactive conference technology, including teleconference, video conference and voice over Internet protocol systems. Clarifies that evidence and hearings conducted by interactive conference technology may be submitted and exchanged electronically. First up, we have Carolee Harada. Hello. Please proceed. You're practicing what's in the Bill.

You're doing it by telecommunication.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I am Carrie Lee Harada, Chief Adjudicator at the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office. This measure provides for Zoom hearings as an alternative to in person and Telephonic Hearings. This bill is not a mandate. It's just another option for those who prefer Zoom.

Zoom has been used successfully since 2021 in response to the COVID pandemic. In fact, Zoom has become the platform of choice among all parties involved in in our NGLRO hearings. Since all parties can easily attend the hearings from any location, it makes it more likely that the parties will actually appear at hearing.

It is efficient, effective, and saves the judiciary time and money. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And I'm. I'm here for any question.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And just remembers edification. ADLRO is the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office, and Carolee Herada is the Chief adjudicator for that office. Thank you very much. And if there's questions, we can go back to her. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2097?

If not questions, Members, I think we're all very comfortable with using Zoom, so it's a good idea. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 2093, relating to the Uniform Probate Code.

This measure provides for the temporary sealing of certain medical records and professional evaluations filed in guardianship and conservatorship proceedings pending a judicial determination on the need for continued search ceiling. First up, we have the judiciary, Mr. Eric Young.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. My name is Eric Young. I'm appearing on behalf of Chief Judge Castagnetti in her capacity as Chair of the Committee on Practices. I'm a Member of that Committee as well. The bill. There's written testimony that's been submitted by the Committee, and I just stand in support of that written testimony.

Could you briefly describe why this is a good bill?

Yes, Chair, thank you for the question. The bill addresses this ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Civil beat Law Center vs. Miley. The gist of that case was that there's a Hawaii court records rule that categorically seals medical records and and health records. And the Ninth Circuit found that that's unconstitutionally overbroad on the First Amendment.

So the Probate Committee reviewed that decision in connection with specific laws that pertain to the guardianship and conservatorship procedure. And evidence of a person's incapacity is central to the adjudication of conservatorship in guardianship cases.

This bill creates a streamlined and efficient uniform procedure in both conservatorship and guardianship cases where the evidence that's presented regarding the prospective or the finding of incapacity of a protected person respondent is temporarily sealed but subject to a judicial hearing and a determination regarding whether or not it's justified to continue the seal you not.

That's an innovative solution. Thank you for putting that in the bill. Thank you for the explanation.

Thank you.

Any other testifiers on HB2093 in the room or on Zoom? Please proceed.

Angela Melody Young, Cares wishing to comment. So, relating to the sealing of certain medical records, someone might attempt to use, use selective or interpreted misinterpreted medical records to prove that a deceased person was not mentally capable when they drafted or created a will aiming to invalidate it and to inherit more from the trust.

So this act, if enacted in good faith, then protects certain medical records from being made public. For example, like maybe the person had seizures and. Yeah. Someone tries to prove like they're not mentally capable to sign a will or something. Yeah.

So it just helps to modernize, simplify, and to standardize the complex laws governing the Uniform Probate Code.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Any questions? Let's move on to the next measure.

House Bill 2181 relating to the judiciary requires the judiciary to develop, implement and administer an automated court appearance reminder system that generates text message or electronic mail notifications from upcoming court appearances in certain types of cases and appropriates funds. First up, Haley Chang. We had to leave to go to another hearing.

She provided testimony and strong support, and Members can read that. And if Ms. Chang can return in time, we might have her give testimony. Next, we have testimony from the judiciary. Michelle Acosta. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Michelle Costin, Deputy Chief Board Administrator for the First Circuit here. On behalf of the judiciary. We did submit written testimony with comments and summarize our written testimony and also perhaps supplement it a bit. The Judiciary established an electronic court hearing reminder system called E-reminder in February of 2020.

The E-reminder is a free courtesy service that is available for use by any party to a case, attorneys, interested parties and any members of the public.

The user opts to receive text messages or email messages which include the following the case name, case ID number, the date, time and location of the court hearing and these messages are sent out seven days prior, the day before and at 6am in the morning the day of your hearing.

Currently, the system is an opt in, meaning anyone wishing to receive a text reminder on their phone or sign up for the service. Since 2021, over 70,000 text reminders have been sent and many more in addition via email. The most critical part of an E-reminder system is ensuring that the cell number and email addresses are valid.

Part 2 of this measure requires that the arrested officer obtain cell phone numbers and record that in the citation and or the arresting record. The vast amount of traffic and criminal citations are used by hand by law enforcement officers, meaning these are all handwritten.

The citations are manually reviewed and entered into the Judiciary case management system by court staff. Because the E-reminder system is not linked with the Judiciary case management system, court staff would need to manually register the cell phone and email addresses into the reminder system separately from the case manager.

This measure requires that ear reminders be used for all traffic, criminal cases in district, family and circuit court matters. In 2025 alone, there were over 400,000 court hearings across all these case types. This would drastically increase the number of E-reminders sent.

The Judiciary appreciates and shares the intent of this bill to encourage people to appear in court and resolve their issues. However, we would need sufficient time to assess and carefully plan for the system to be enhanced and meet the intent of this bill.

And so therefore, we are asking that that the effective date be delayed so that we can plan more carefully and thoughtfully for this. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Community alliance on Prisons, Scott Brady testifying in support. Next we have Lisel Petis from the R Street Institute testifying in support via Zoom. Are you there?

I am here, yes.

Please proceed.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Liesl Petis and I'm the Policy Director for Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the Archery Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization.

I'm here today in support of House Bill 2181, which would move Hawaii's court reminder system from Opt in to opt out. As just explained, this is a small procedural change, but delivers real results to reduce failures to appear. Right now in Hawaii, defendants must take the extra step of signing up to receive court reminders.

Behavioral science and evidence from other states shows that small hurdle can suppress participation. Even with the best intentions, often reminder systems can be cumbersome to navigate and I do encourage Committee Members to try out the the Hawaii system. As a result, many states with opt in systems can see enrollment rates under 5%.

But when reminders are automated, participation rises to 70 to 90%. With increased enrollment, many states have seen failures to appear drop by 20 to 40%. That matters because missed court dates aren't just about personal accountability. They have system wide costs.

That means fewer bench warrants, fewer court delays, and fewer taxpayer dollars spent on unnecessary enforcement on mayor reminders are gaining traction nationwide. With bipartisan support, states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado have adopted automated court reminders. Virginia, Ohio and Michigan are all considering similar changes right now.

In fact, Virginia's Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed such legislation today. I've also heard firsthand from both prosecutors and public defenders across the states who support the change. It's also cost effective. These systems are generally implemented for 35,000 to $600,000 and maintained for less than $1 per case. Meanwhile, a single missed court appearance is estimated to cost $1,500.

In today's world, where nearly 98% of Americans have a cell phone, remainders aren't just common, they're expected. From our dentist to our hairstylist, people assume that they will get notified of all important appointments.

House Bill 2181 is a low cost, high impact opportunity to bring Hawaii's pretrial process in line with modern best practices supporting court appearances, reducing unnecessary costs, and promoting fairness without compromising public safety. I urge the Committee to support this bill and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for your testimony and we may come back to you with questions. Thank you for standing by. Next we have testimony from Pikachu Billionaire on Zoom. Please proceed Mr. Billionaire.

Aloha David Tarnas. All the rest. I'll keep it short and sweet. I approve this. I like it. I'll let you guys work all the details and amendments. I won't waste any of your guys time. Thanks for hosting us. Aloha. Love you guys.

Thank you. Next we have Lorene Godfrey testifying in support, in writing. Terry Yoshinaga submitted written testimony and support and Carrie Ann Shirota is also testifying in support, but she's at another hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in HB2181? Yes, please. Melissa Pavlicek.

My name is Melissa Pavlicek. I serve as a pro bono mentor to three University of Hawaii law students and a Chaminade undergraduate student in a program called Opportunity for Youth Hawaii. And we have testified in support of notification systems before. The purpose of our program is to reduce youth incarceration.

I realize the students did not have an opportunity to submit testimony in time. If you would allow us to register our support for this measure and submit it online, I would welcome being part of the conversation going forward if this bill moves.

Thank you very much. If you could just work with Kamana, who's going to be at that table so you can figure that out. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Yes, please.

Angela Melody, on testifying on behalf of CARES, I'm in strong favor of this legislation. So amendment to page four. I'd like to propose that to line. 16. You could put the, to include the email address as well to keep up with this modern generation.

And so so basically I think what this bill does is that it transmits a text message or electronic mail notification to certain persons who are required to appear in court at a future court date. So I think it's a good bill because now they're more obligated. Yeah. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not questions. Members, I have a question for. Miss Petis. I wondered if you could talk about, I mean you've, you're an expert in this area and you've written something on it.

Could you briefly tell us how we could learn more about this issue and the report that you released? If you could just briefly tell us about that.

Sure. So I will say that there's a couple agencies that have pretty in depth research, including random controlled trial studies as well as before and after studies for states that have implemented and that would be through PEW as well as ideas 42.

Our research has also compiled a lot of that data to make it in a little bit more digestible format for people to read through both on failures to appear as well as automated court reminders. And I'm happy to share those with the Committee after this.

Thank you. And Members, you could look at her Testimony. R Street www.rstreet.org is their site. We anyone who attended the National Conference of State Legislatures may have interacted with this organization. I find them very well educated and I can learn a lot from them. Then I would urge you to take advantage of that as well. Thank you.

Ms. Petis, I had a question for Judiciary. If I look at your testimony and I'm trying to understand, out of 400,000 cases, 400,000 court hearings, there's 70,000 text messages sent. And this is over a five year period. That's a very low uptake. It's, you know, it's like three and a half percent.

So that's, it seems like this other approach, you would get a lot more people and you would need more resources. But I think you recognize it. It's a useful thing. But am I doing my math correct? Is it only like three and a half percent?

I went to law school and math was not my big thing. So I apologize. I'm not confused.

Okay, so 70,000 text messages sent, 400,000 court hearings from 2020 to 2025. So I, it just seems like it's a very low utilization rate.

If the math states. So it is an opt in. So we're happy to look at what would make it more useful for people for a broader segment of the population. I think what we, as I stated is the crux of it is how do we get the valid text cell phone numbers, how do we get the validation?

So it'd be interesting to know how the other jurisdictions, maybe they're, they're registering people that are, you know, are those, what's the rate of validity of the contact information that's being gathered?

Appreciate that.

And, and I am with, I'm going to recommend to the Committee that we do try to move this forward because I'd like to get more details and drill down into this a little more about, you know, so it would be great to, to have you go back and try to really figure out how much it would cost to implement this and how much time would you need.

I'll, you know, make a suggestion in my recommendation to the Committee, but perhaps we all need to do homework on this and I would look to Ms. Petis and her work and other suggested best practices so we can all learn together and see if we can implement this year.

Because it sure would be nice if we had more people show up at their court hearings. And I know we all agree about that. Yeah. So very good. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you. Yes, please go ahead, Ms. Cochran.

Thank you. And so yeah, I'm supportive of this bill. Obviously, you know, cost and how does this work? First off, with the, with the E-notifications, has your shows improved?

Just overall, I don't have our failure to appear reader with me and I can share that to see if there has been an improvement. And certainly I can provide that information.

But if I could just add one more thing in terms of encouraging more use of the system, we have included the QR code for the E-reminder System and the 2026 citations for traffic, parking, infractions and criminals.

So that's a step that we're trying to take in terms of it is an opt in, but we're trying to make it more visible on there and it's right next to the information on how to appear via Zoom for criminals. So I think it somewhat meets some of the intent of the bill.

But we understand that we certainly can look for ways to enhance the system.

I have a follow up Chair, if you don't mind. I think it was in Ms. Brady's comments that 90%. Oh wait, Ms. Costa, wait. I have a follow up. Sorry. 90% of the people didn't even, weren't even aware of such a program. So perhaps. And then I think I just want to follow up on your testimony.

The challenge, I guess from because other states use citations, what is the information that law enforcement put into their tickets and citations to the person that. And then that transcribes into the court system. Did you say that these tickets are handwritten? What hard to read their writing or. Okay.

And then you have to physically pull up every ticket, type it into your computer, whatever. So I'm just wondering if there's a way to find some kind of program.

Maybe some of these other states like Arizona and New Mexico, which have an increase of 75 to 90% of turnout for court hearings that have the opt out option, have, you know, I'm just wondering if there's like when they do the reports in their police Department, it already forwards into your system.

You know, the court system was, I don't know, something like that. But I think again, research and you.

Know, we all got to do our.

Own more to see how other states do it. But I'm supportive of that. So I was just wondering what that challenge was for you.

Yeah, so it is handwritten citations. We have some electronic citation programs that are happening in various police departments, but those are not widely used just yet. So it is handwritten citations. So we'll take a look at that technology as to how those can be scanned and read and put in.

But at this point it is on a manual handwriting, manual entry.

Thank you. We have one more question from Vice Chair.

You mentioned invalid cell phone and email information. Do you have data on how many Invalid cell phone or emails.

You have be careful that report. We do use the third party vendor to send us text messages so we can, I believe get a report to see how many of those are not valid. But it is an opt in. So presumably people are opting in, are inputting correct cell phone numbers.

It would be interesting to hear from other jurisdictions where the siting officer is entering the phone number if it's the correct number that's being provided or it's just a different type of bogus phone number.

Yeah, I know there is a way to scrub lists of invalid data, but I don't know much more than that. I was just trying to make the connection between the invalid numbers and emails and what kind of exponential vendor costs that could potentially result in.

Thank you. Thank you.

But thank you.

Chair. I have one follow up from Ms. Acosta. So currently people that show up actually show up for the first court hearing or whatever, at that point, does anybody in this court system ask them physically with them face to face, what is your contact?

Are you open to E-notifications from here on out?

The E-citation, we have posters throughout our courthouses, we have flyers. I am not a judge, so I'm not sure what happens in each and every one of our courthouses. But it is, you know, made available as a service to folks.

But sorry, Chair, I think my line of questioning was to get their accurate information directly right then and there. Obviously the person has to show up for court so the E-notification doesn't work and to get their correct accurate information if they didn't show up. But. So that was kind of my line of questioning at that point.

You can literally speak to that person, say what is your contact from here, where it will start sending you or if you so choose, unless this bill passes. Right.

I don't know what currently occurs, whether we're not, we're actively collecting that, but we are making this service as something that this would help you remember coming to court. So I can, I can check on that. That is something that, you know, would help with that. And so we'll, we'll take it back. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Thanks. Members, let's move on to the next measure. Thank you to all the testifiers. Move on to the last measure on our agenda.

House Bill 2369 relating to purchase of service contracts by the judiciary beginning January 1, 2027 requires contracts for services awarded to community based organizations by the judiciary in support of fulfilling its statutory mandate to individuals, families and communities in the state to include certain protections against inflation.

It appropriates funds to the judiciary to increase the contract price and existing contracts for certain services provided by community based organizations in support of fulfilling its statutory mandate to individuals, families and communities in the state. First up, we have Mr. Brandon Kimura of the Judiciary.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brandon Kimora, Administrative Director of the Courts it's submitted as written testimony only, but happy to happy to share verbally what we described and be available to answer any questions if that would be helpful. We provide comments here.

We support and we acknowledge the intent as discussed earlier on our budget measure. We certainly appreciate and would like to and provide be available as a pass through for sustainable funding for our incredible partners service providers. So we acknowledge and support the intent of the measure.

However, we are unable to commit to funding the contracts as the measure describes with essentially an automatic increase year over year without a corresponding automatic increase in our judiciary appropriation. So that is where we raise a concern.

We do appreciate that the measure as written includes an appropriation amount for the current fiscal year and in that amount we are certainly supportive and happy to pass that through to the providers available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next we have written testimony and support from the Office of Public Defender Kuikahi Mediation center. And then we have testimony on Zoom from Hale Kipa, Venus Rosette Medeiros, please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Venus Rosetti Medeiros and I'm the President and CEO of Arequipa. We're a community based organization that has partnered with the Judiciary for over 55 years to serve our youth, families and individuals involved in the court system.

I am here today in strong support of SB24 I mean 2369. Community based organizations are essential partners in fulfilling their judiciary's statutory mandate. We provide the services that courts rely on every day. Intervention, treatment, supervision, family support and stabilization services that help people comply with court orders, reduce the recidivism and move towards healing accountability.

However, the cost of providing these services in Hawaii has increased significantly. While many judiciary purchase of service contracts have remained flat for years. Inflation has driven up labor costs, insurance, rent, utilities and transportation. These are unavoidable costs and when contracts do not adjust, organizations are forced to absorb them. This creates serious consequences.

Staff turnover, difficulty retaining qualified professionals and a strain on programs that courts depend on to function effectively. When community based organizations are destabilized, the impact is felt across the justice system are delays in services, fewer options for the courts and increased challenges for families and individuals seeking support. HB 2369 is a necessary and responsible solution.

By requiring these inflation protections in future contracts and increasing funding for existing contract, this bill strengthens the judiciary's ability to deliver consistent, high quality and timely services. Simply put, justice does not happen in isolation. It depends on stable partnerships and sustainable funding.

HB 2369 recognizes that reality and it ensures that community based organizations can continue to meet the expectations placed upon them. I respect respectfully urge you to pass HB 2369. Doing so supports access to justice, strengthens our court system and ensures better outcomes for our individuals, our families and communities across Hawaii. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you Ms. Rossetti Medeiros. Next we have Ryan Kusumoto, Parents and Children Together in support. Thank you for coming up to testify.

Thank you Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair POIPOI and Members of the Committee. Again, I'm Ryan Kusumoto, President CEO of Parents and Children Together and I'm a Member of the True Cost Coalition as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 2369. As I mentioned earlier, Pact is a statewide social service organization.

We're founded as by the residents of Kuhio park terrace in 1968. We currently provide services on all islands with 20 programs and we partner with the judiciary on some of those programs and are grateful for that partnership.

I would concur with what the previous testifier Venus said from Halequipa and I'd like to just sort of emphasize and add that the reality is that nonprofits have been subsidizing government mandated services through for many years through purchase of service contracts.

While the expectations and the requirements have remained the same or in many cases reimbursements in many cases have increased. As Venus mentioned, reimbursement rates have remained flat and do not reflect the true cost of service delivery. Historically, to do that work we have relied on fundraising and other limited sources of revenues to fill those gaps.

But I would say that we are really at a critical point and the ability to sustainably finance the work in this way. So HB 2369 is a critical step forward.

It recognizes the rising cost directly impact the ability of the community based organizations to continue to provide high quality and effective services and by updating and adjusting the reimbursement rates. This bill takes a step forward so organizations can do again what Venus had mentioned is to retain qualified staff, meet the requirements, continue to serve the community effectively.

The alternative would be for nonprofits to give up this work and force the state to take on this burden at a higher cost. So thank you for your consideration hearing this bill and I respectfully urge you to support.

Thank you Mr. Kusumoto. Thank you for your good work. Next Amanda Pump, Child and Family Service in support by a Zoom not present Next, Melissa Pavlicek, True Cost Coalition in support. Please proceed.

Aloha. Melissa Pavlicek, on behalf of the True Cost Coalition, you've heard from some of our members. We have 70 community based organizations and individuals doing the work of government.

And so I would just summarize my testimony by saying this is our number one priority and draw your attention to a small chart on the back or at the end of our testimony which shows some of the costs that we're facing. Thank you very much.

Very serious matter. Thank you very much. Ms. Pavlicek and Angie Mercado, Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnes Vice Chair Poepoe Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado with the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And you have actually heard from some of our Member programs and we are also part of the True Cost Coalition and we are, I'm standing here in strong support of this measure.

We know that what the judiciary contracts are asking our Member programs to do is enact many of the safety measures that our community actually wants. And see, especially when it comes to court orders, several of our programs actually provide domestic violence intervention services that come through the judiciary.

And I just want to say that how we value safety and surviving safety in our community is also reflected in our budgets and, and what we allocate to that. So I urge this Committee to please pass this measure, pass this measure so that we can so talk. Oh, sorry. It is the end of the day, isn't it?

So that we can actually really, you know, fulfill our commitment to survivors, but also to the many people who invest and train their staff and ensuring that they're getting the best quality services out there. So thank you for this opportunity. Aloha.

Thank you, Angie. Thanks for your good work. There's 21 testimonies that we've received, all of them in support. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, please proceed.

Angela Melody Young, CARES in strong favor of this legislation. I think the goal is to ensure the continued delivery of programs and essential services provided by a team of community based organizations supporting the court system and the vulnerable populations.

And so the legislation, it targets community based organizations working with the Hawaii judiciary and has contracts to provide better services like legal aid, counseling, rehabilitation programs to help the vulnerable population.

And I think what this bill is trying to do, it tries to raise awareness about the much needed services and that there needs to be an appropriation of.

And so when the state helps to support the nonprofits and the businesses, who is providing the support system to the judiciary, then it helps to maximize your resources and instead of having to drain or burn. Like the state offices that cannot provide these services.

So yeah, for example, like inflation and gas prices for the office assistant to help at the attorney's office to help process things. Right. We're probably going to need an appropriation of funding. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not questions Members? Representative Belatti.

For Mr.

Kimura, one pray about a little context for my question. The True Cost Coalition and the work that they are doing is tremendously important. And I think they're giving us good information about how we need to make sure our purchase of service contracts stay current. Because what's happening essentially is that that entire sector has not had a raise.

For over 20 years. And these are the people who are providing the most important, critical services in the area of substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment. These are the people that we rely to make sure that people are being cared for.

I understand that in 2023, you know, the Legislature gave the judiciary and I believe the Department of Health and Department of Human Services money to contract and determine cost of living adjustments for purchase of service providers to the judiciary, Department of Health and Department of Human Services. What was the outcome of that study?

Because you should have be able to provide to us details about what is the cost of living adjustments we could expect for this budget cycle.

Thank you Representative, for the question. So that measure or the funding or throughout that session, as you, as you certainly recall and others recall, the Legislature was going back and forth between actually was mostly focused on the amount and initially it was 5% and then 20% and then back to 10.

And in conference Committee, I believe they shifted it so that ultimately the result was as you shared 333,000 for the judiciary, the same amount for DHS, the same amount for DOH for an actuarial study to assess the cost of living for purchase of service contracts. We immediately put out an RFP for that. No one bid.

We, we broadened it and put out again and again no one bid. So unfortunately we had to lapse the money back. And because of the language of the measure, because it was for an actuarial study, it wasn't for services, we had lapsed the money back to the General Fund.

So we do not have anything to share in terms of an assessment of the magnitude. And what's more hurtful, I think to us is that we have any services to have offered with those funds either.

Can I follow up?

Sure.

So the $330,000 was a funds. I just want to remind again the context. One of the reasons why I was so upset that session, and that was the one session where I did vote against the budget was because of some of these kinds of things where we were not funding.

So my question is, who were you looking to do the actuarial studies to be able to give us the information about what the cost of living adjustments would be? Was it someone that you were searching for in the community here or was it a fine. I'm kind of confused about because where do we get this information?

If you wanted to determine what that information was, where would we get that information?

Through regular procurement. When we issue an rfp, we post it online. And so folks who are sort of in the fields and might possibly do this kinds of work would bid on that.

And when there are more than one, especially then we go through the procurement process and we can provide the RFPs to you if that would be helpful.

I guess it's not. But who like are you talking about? Like, are they financial consultants? Are they. What are the kinds of like? Or is it someone like Hano? Would Hano be able to conduct that kind of cost of living adjustment analysis for us quickly to give us numbers so that we could consider it for this session?

In terms of who can advise as to the magnitude that I would not be in a good position. I'd defer to True Cost Coalition as to who may be a good body at this point. The language of the measure was shall be expended for actuaries.

And so I believe that we were required to use that kind of language or something pretty close to it in our RFP as opposed to someone with subject matter expertise in the area or something like that.

So by actuaries, meaning financial consulting as.

A non actuarial, that's how I interpret it. It would require somebody with that kind of knowledge. Thank you, Chair.

One more follow up with someone from Hano.

Okay, last one here.

Can I have someone from Hano who might be, if they could, or anyone from the nonprofit sector who might be able to shed light on what kind of. Yeah, what kind of.

On behalf of the True Cost Coalition, we've been working extensively with the Hawaii Data Collaborative. They provided the information that is in our testimony. It is a challenge. We know that the Department of Health was able to successfully engage in actuary. To do at least some of the. Work or some of the divisions.

So I'm not sure what other resources might be available. I'd be glad to work with the Committee or Chair Tarnas, if there's anything we can suggest further, a couple of the challenges, even as to identifying the total, which contracts are we talking about, how much is being spent on them?

Because when there are increases, they come with additional services required. Well, that's not actually more budget. That's like maybe less budget to serve more people kinds of things. So it is not apples to apples. It is a challenge.

And I appreciate that the judiciary was able to give us numbers on what a 5% to 15% increase would be back in 2023. And I think we've had some conversations since then, too, and they've been very willing to work with us. So that's all I know at this moment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay, let's move on to decision making.

One more question for Mr. Kimora real quickly. Sorry. Thank you. In Second Circuit Court, I know most judges will automatically and also this Lahaina Court ask for mediation before the judge, you know, rules. So is that does your, does your judiciary help fund that type of service?

As a volunteer for Maui Mediation Service as I enter know county helps, but I just thought because judge always asks that question, first of the people, we.

Do have a contract with the mediation centers across the state for that mediation in district courts. And that's one of the POS, one of our purchase of service contracts that we maintain for mediation and treatment services and various things.

And just to elaborate very briefly on Ms. Pavlichek's statement, we, because we are not in a position to assess the magnitude of the cost of living increases year over year, as you sort of described, we have been able to share with the True Cost Coalition. Happy to share with the Committee if it would be helpful.

Essentially, our current, you know, this is what we, this is where we are at for POS. If the Legislature deems that a 5% or a 10% or some other number would be appropriate, we leave that to you. But that's we're not in a position to identify with it.

The increase would be what an appropriate increase would be balancing it with the amount of funds available.

Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Okay, I think we're wrapped up all our questions. Let's now move on to decision making. Thank you to all the testifiers. Let's go to the top of the agenda, House Bill 2095, which is the judiciary budget.

I support this budget and I will continue discussions on it with the judiciary so that I'm fully equipped to advocate for it as it moves on to its next Committee.

The form I'd like to move it on to Finance Committee is as a House draft one, with the only change being to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

And I look forward to working with Mr. Kimura and the team at the Judiciary Branch so that we can be prepared for answering all the questions and some of the things we discussed during questioning. So that's my recommendation. Pass it out with amendments only to defect the effective date. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2095 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 2094 relating to jury duty, increases the pay for jurors and prospective jurors. This is very important. It's been a long time coming, so let's try to move it through this year. And it will now move to Finance.

If we can get approval from this Committee, I recommend we move this out with amendments. House Draft 1. Defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. Keep having a blank appropriation amount, but put the requested appropriation into the Standing Committee report.

I think it's at $684,385 that we would put that into the Standing Committee report and move it to Finance. That's my recommendation. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote, voting on.

House Bill 2094 with amendments. All Members are present. Are there any voting with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 1528, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for state justices and judges is currently 70. And we are proposing to move it to 75. My recommendation is to make only technical amendments and pass it with. With this, those minor technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Questions or concerns. Members, if not vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1528 with amendments. All Members are present. Are there any voting with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next, House Bill 2090 relating to domestic abuse orders for protection. It's a good measure and we need to move it through to correct an oversight, I think, really on our part so that it would actually function properly. And so my recommendation is we pass this out as is.

Questions or concerns Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2090 as is. All Members are present. Are there any voting reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. House Bill 2088 relating to adoptions. Again, I think this is something that's very reasonable. I would like to move this forward and I recommend we pass this as is Questions or concerns Members, if not vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2088 as is. All Members are present. Are there any with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. House Bill 2097 relating to administrative driver's license revocation brings us into the modern world and I think it's very compelling and I'd like to move this forward with one slight amendment. Section 29E 34E 7 needs to be amended to address a cross reference to section 291E38J.

We have some very smart people in our bill drafting agency, House majority staff office and they caught that reference that we need to add with that minor amendment. I would like to move this through with a clean date. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2097 with amendments. All Members are present. Are there any with reservations? Any noes? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. House Bill 2093 relating to the Uniform Probate Court. Excuse me, relating to the Uniform Probate Code. Again, I think this is a very reasonable bill as proposed by the Judiciary. I'd like to move this through and recommend we pass this as is Questions or concerns Members seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 2093 as is all Members are present. Are there any voting with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next Bill, House Bill 2181. I think this is a really good bill and I know it's a stretch, but I think I've seen it from studies as really working well elsewhere.

So I'd like to move this forward and I would ask the Kokua of the Judiciary to help us to figure out how we're going to make this work. I recognize you'll need funding and you'll need time, but I do think that this is a good system.

I did work with folks that we heard earlier, Lisa, Liesel, Petis, to come up with some recommended amendments, which I will read in just a moment. But I'd like to move this forward and again ask the Kokua of the Judiciary to make that make sure we have make sure we do that properly and we address your concerns.

So I'd like to move this forward. My recommended amendments. I want to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style on defect. The effective date July 1st, 3000 provided that Section 3 would start in July of 2027. I want to put it off a little bit into the future. Let's go ahead and go through this.

On page three, line 15, the Department of Public Safety or its successor agency should be changed to the Department of Corrections and rehabilitation. Page four, line 15, page five, line two to four, insert language requiring the arrest record and citation to include the person's electronic mail address, if available.

Since the automated system issues text messages or electronic mail notification, the statutory language for section 803.6C should be updated to incorporate the amendments that we made in Act 2 in 2025. We need to include the boilerplate language specifying that the judiciary is the expending agency.

As I said, the effective date for Section three should be July 12027. As I said, technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We have a blank appropriation amount.

I would request that the Judiciary help us, the Finance Committee, if it makes it there, to provide them with some guidance on how you could come up with the estimated amount and when you could start implementing this. You know, to be able to cost it out and provide finance with that amount.

When working with Ms. Petis, there's a few things I apologize I'm going to have to read this. But based on work in other states, these amendments would really improve this bill. I want to add a new section to provide opt out.

The program shall permit a defendant the opportunity to opt out of participating in the program at any time. I want to also say that information in this that's gathered through this program cannot be used for prosecution.

Any telephone number provided pursuant to this section shall not be one used by law enforcement, corrections personnel or any other government agency for investigative, intelligence or enforcement purposes or two. Shared with any third party except as strictly necessary to facilitate court appearance reminders or as required by law.

Also, refusal to provide a telephone number to a law enforcement officer, corrections personnel, or court Staff shall not be 1. Held against the defendant for any purpose 2 considered evidence of guilt or 3. Used adversely against the defendant in any criminal proceeding and then also that this information cannot be used as defense.

A failure of the program to send a text message notification to a defendant reminding him or her of a scheduled court hearing or failure of the defendant to receive any such notification shall not remove the legal obligation for that person to appear for their scheduled court hearing.

Many of these things you already have in your disclaimers on your form to fill out the to participate in this, but I want to put it into the statute so it's clear collection of the phone number. The current language is on page four, line 15 to 17.

The person shall note in the arrest record the arrestee's mobile telephone number or mobile telephone number at which the arrestee may be reliably contacted.

I'd like to amend that to say the person shall, to the extent practicable, obtain the arrestee's mobile telephone number or a mobile telephone number at which the arrestee may be reliably contacted at the time of executing booking and release forms. And note within the arrest record. Okay.

On page five, lines two to four, current language says the name and current address the offender, including the offender's mobile telephone number or mobile telephone number at which the offender may be reliably contacted.

We want to add, including, to the extent practicable, the offender's mobile telephone number or a mobile telephone number at which the offender may be reliably contacted. And then finally, a new section on collection of data. The court shall collect, maintain and report data relevant to the Administration and effectiveness of the program.

And such data shall include, one, the number of defendants enrolled in the program, Two, the number of defendants who opt out of the program.

Three, the number of defendants for whom the program does not have a telephone number and four, the number of enrolled defendants who fail to appear for a scheduled court appearance or fail to pay a ticket. This data shall be made publicly available or provide such data to the General. To the Legislature on an annual basis.

That'll help us really figure out whether it's working or not. So those are the additions I'd like to make to this. Apologize again for reading it all, but that was the best way to do it with those amendments. I would like to move it out with. zero, and put that.

If we do have a dollar amount, if you come up with it quickly, I can put it into the standing Committee report. Otherwise, we'll say the finance Committee could work with the judiciary to determine the amount. Okay. So with those suggested amendments, I'd like to pass it out as a House draft. 1. Questions or concerns, Members?

Thank you, Chair, for those additional concerns. Thank you, sir. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. Vice chair for the vote on House.

Bill 2181 with amendments, all Members are present. Are there any voting with reservations? Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Last measure, House Bill 2369, a very important measure. We have to face the reality that nonprofits are current, have been for a long time subsidizing the state and providing services that are essential to our judicial system. And I honor those nonprofits for doing that hard work. But it's high time the state starts paying for it.

And so this measure will help do that. I recognize the challenge of coming up with the mechanism for identifying how much, what percentage it is or what, and then making sure you get the legislative appropriation to pay for it. So it's complicated.

But I would like to recommend we move this bill forward with the House draft one so that Finance Committee can start addressing these real issues. And I'd like to use this Judiciary purchase of service contracts as a good place to start. Other agencies want to do the same thing. Our focus is on the judiciary. Let's do this.

We got to be fair to our people in the state. And so I recommend we move it out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style defect the effective date to July 1, 3000.

I would like to ask Finance to determine the means of implementing this and work with the Judiciary to determine the amount for the appropriations in their deliberations. So that's my intention to move this forward. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members?

Comments?

Thank you very much. I think this is a really important initiative and I appreciate that we're taking this really focused approach and starting with the judiciary and their contracts first.

Comments?

Thanks for the affirmation. Other comments? Questions? Concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on House Bill 2369 with amendments. All Members are present. Are there any voting with reservations? Reservations for Representative Garcia. Any voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee today. We are adjourned.