Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Joint Judiciary and Labor and Technology Committee hearing. And we have a nine o'clock agenda. Do you have anything you'd like to say to start? Okay, I'll go through the standard stuff. As noted, this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

You can find links to viewing options for all senate hearings and meetings on the live and on demand video page of the legislature's website, capital.hawaii.gov. In the unlikely—abruptly end this hearing due to major technical difficulties, the committees will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on February 10th, which I believe is Tuesday at 9 AM, here in room 016 and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

For all the people testifying remotely, all testifier audio will be muted and video disabled. And so, when it's your turn to testify, per the committee's practice, two-minute time limit, is that okay?

Yeah.

Okay.

And if there are any temporary technical glitches during your turn to testify, we may have to move on to the next person, but we'll try to come back to you. Okay. First up on our nine o'clock joint agenda is SB 2841.

2841. Requires the Department of the Attorney General to develop a human trafficking awareness training program to educate and train workers in the transient accommodation sector. First up on SB 2841 is Jade Butay, Director for Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, or his designee. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, and Member. Bill Kunstman, Deputy Director, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We'll stand on our testimony supporting the intent, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Mike Lambert for Department of Law Enforcement in support. Next is Kekoa McClellan for Hawaii Hotel Alliance and American Hotel and Lodging Association. Morning.

Aloha, Chair Rhoads, Chair Elefante, Honorable Members of the Joint Committees. Thank you so much for your time this morning and for hearing this most important bill. On behalf of the American Hotel Lodging Association and the Hawaii Hotel Alliance, for the record, Kekoa McClellan, as both chief advocate and spokesperson.

Thank you very much for putting attention on this crucial issue. For a generation, Hawaii's hotels and our member properties have been committed to identifying and preventing human trafficking because we believe that there is no room for human trafficking in our hotels. We believe that the bills and producers are true champions for the meekest amongst us. And the visitor industry stands fully behind this measure. We have provided some amicable amendments to you for your consideration.

These amendments would allow operators that have for many, many years implemented substantial training programs to be able to provide those. And some amendments that also capture everyone in the visitor space so that all transient accommodations providers make that same commitment and are held to the same standard. So with that, mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. Next up is Kris Coffield, President of Imua Alliance, in support. Next is Nancy Moser in support. Victor Ramos in support. Casey Park in support. Cecilia Wang in support. Michelle Stefanik in support. Stacey Moniz in support. I don't see any of them here. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 2841? Seeing none. Members, questions? Did have a question for Mr. Kunstman. I think your testimony was that you and DLE have agreed for them to be the lead agency on this, is that correct?

That is correct. The directors have spoken and that's what the administration's position is.

Okay. But the Attorney General will still be the one that does the approval? Either creates the training program or approves a third party training program.

The section one of the bill? Yeah. I'm not sure. I can't speak on behalf of the Attorney General.

Okay, but as far as you know, the change you were asking for was just to switch point agencies?

Correct.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Other questions, Members? Okay, thank you very much. Let's go on to the second and last bill on this agenda, which is relating to the Campaign Spending Commission.

This adjusts the salaries of Campaign Spending Commission's Executive Director and Associate Director to align with similar government officials who have compliance and enforcement responsibilities. First up on... I'm sorry, that... And that is SB 2533. First up on SB 2533 is Kristin Izumi-Nitao or Kristie Chang, Council for the Campaign Spending Commission. Morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Gabbard and Vice Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee. Christy Chang appearing on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. The Commission, of course, supports this Bill. This is a Bill that we had asked to be introduced to bring parity with the salaries.

Right now, there's a disparity between our office and other similar offices that do enforcement and compliance. It's roughly a $30,000 differential because those salaries are determined by the Commission on Salaries, whereas ours is just a budget line item.

The commissioners are aware of the salary disparity, but due to our very limited budget, they're unable to address that. And we ask that your committees support our Bill and pass it. I'm available for questions.

Great, thank you. Next is Anne Frederick, Executive Director for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, in support. Michelle Stefanik in opposition. That's everyone who signed up on SB 2533. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 2533? Seeing none. Members, questions? Senator Moriwaki.

Just a quick question.

Good morning.

Good morning. You align the salaries to the Director of Health. Is there any justification why the Director of Health?

Well, to be honest, when I put that together, it was sort of looking at when those disparities—I mean when those other agencies'—salaries were adjusted, it followed with the Department of Health. So, I sort of followed that same alignment, though I'm not quite sure why that was.

I was trying to do research and I'm happy to try to figure that out. But it was following those bills that were passed in order to bring the Ethics Commission, the, the, the Bureau and the Auditor's Office. It, it did the same things.

The Department of Health is very large.

I know.

Yes, but yes. All the other agencies that saw their salaries were adjusted in the cell previously. But, but we're open to other suggestions. So.

Yeah, compared to some.

Yeah, I do want to follow up with that.

Hang on. Let me just be sure. Senator Moriwaki, are you—okay. Senator San Buenaventura, go ahead.

Yeah. The Department of Health is also—is very large—and the reason for the Director of the Department of Health being significant is because we have a difficult time finding somebody, usually a physician, to accept such a salary. Right? Whereas to head the hydra of Director of the Department of Health. So, my question is regarding alignment.

So, why don't you just reduce everybody else's salary instead of bringing everybody bringing their salary up if you want to make it align?

Well, Senator, I don't—our office doesn't have control over those other offices and their salary. So, I can't answer that question. I think that would be up to the other—the ledge. And because those offices are administratively attached to the ledge, whereas we're administratively attached to DAGS and so, like I said, we don't have control over what other budgets are. The Commission only has control over the budget that they're allotted.

I understand why campaign spending commission salary should, should align, but I do, I disagree with aligning it with the Director of Health, okay, because.

Yes, I understand.

The responsibilities are far greater and administratively, and as far as recruitment, it's far more difficult to find somebody there.

My other question is when we had the salary increases for the past couple of years, why didn't the salary increase start like at a time when the judges got their salary increase, at a time when the county council got their salary increase, time when everyone else got their salary increase? Why is there a delay?

Senator, I can't speak to that. I'm new to the Commission. I started in June as the General Counsel. I'm now the Associate Director.

But to the extent that I understand is that at that time, those, those, that—the bills were introduced to adjust the legislative salaries and during, I think our commissioners, like I said, we're administratively attached to DAGS, and we can make the request to DAGS, but those line items, you know, it really is up to DAGs and Budget and Finance whether or not that salary would be adjusted in there.

So, every time, there is, I mean, there's always a lag. Is that what you're saying? With campaign spending, commission salaries and doesn't get adjusted along with everybody with—similarly placed?

Yes, that is correct. The adjustments that we do get is when—because we're all exempt, so, the adjustments we do get are generally when it's a when bargaining units will follow other bargaining units. So, we'll get to 2% or 3%. And if there is additional money in the budget, then that could, the commissioners could give a salary.

But really, our budget is really limited. And as we pointed out in our testimony, our duties have increased over the years and we currently have five staff. Right now, we have four because we—Tony retired in December. We're hoping to fill that position soon.

And, and we appreciate last year we were allotted or approved to add two more positions and we're in the process of doing that. But it's really trying to keep up with the work and trying to recruit is a challenge.

I'm sorry. So, the other—I'm sorry. So, why don't you folks align your salary with a similarly placed agency instead of Department of Health?

Well, because in DAGs, there aren't other agencies that do enforcement and compliance. So, right now, we fall under with elections, like in that chapter. Elections doesn't do enforcement and so, trying to find other agencies. So, really, I think for us, we were really similar to ethics because they also do compliance and enforcement. Right?

People do reporting and then the enforcement aspect. And so, that's sort of where we did. Like I said, I don't know why those salaries were tied to Department of Health. I can do some research on that because there obviously was some reason when all those agencies were tied to that, but I don't know the answer.

And I was trying to find that when we put this together, but I'm happy to try to do some more legislative history on that for you and get back to that.

What is the difference in salary between what you folks are asking and that of Ethics?

It's $30,000 and it's only going to.

Ethics is also aligned with Director of Department?

Yes, yes.

Maybe we shouldn't. Okay.

Okay. We'll go with Senator Elefante, and then I'll go to Senator Awa.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Chang, for your work on this. So, the one question I had is in the Bill, it also has 87% of the salary for your Associate Director. How was that percentage?

That was also followed in other offices that we quoted. So, Ethics doesn't have an Associate Director, but others have, where they have like a Director and it sort of models that language in there.

And I'm sorry, I don't know if you answered this question when—during some of the questions from Senator San Buenaventura, but normally, through a budget process, because you're attached to DAGS, the Campaign Spending Commission would go through that approval and then go through budget and finance.

Is that a process that was looked at prior to introduction of this Bill?

Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. We did include that as a supplement to our budget for this cycle. And I'll tell you, the total amount that we're asking for was 139,000 to cover everything. And that item was removed by Budget and Finance. But we did make the request.

Okay, thank you so much, Ms. Chang. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Awa.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thanks for coming in person. What are you folks making now for those two positions?

So, I don't. I think Kristen in salary, what's reported in the Civil Beat, I think it's 170—in the 170 range. And then, the Associate Director was 153, but he retired. I replaced that and—but that's not my salary as their replacement.

And how long has it been since the last time that's gone up?

So, I can't—I don't know exactly. Like I said, I started in June, but as I mentioned previously, we generally follow the different bargaining units. So, when those bargaining units get their 3% pay raise, that's sort of the pay raise that we follow. So, that would be, you know, effective July 1st, when the next—the last set of raises happened.

Thank you.

Other questions, Members? I do have one. So, the Executive Director or you, neither one of you are in the Salary Commission. You're not included in the salary commission that covers Legislature, directors, judges, right?

Yes, we're not included.

It's just totally.

It's just basically what we put in our budget and what gets approved, and then the salaries are determined from there.

Do you have to know how big the Ethics Office is, how many people they have?

I believe, when I spoke to Mr. Harrison yesterday when we were at another hearing, I think he says they have 12. And like I said—yeah, right, 12. Well, 12, right now, we have five and we're in the process of hiring an investigator and another ethics—I mean, elections assistant.

So, that would bring us to seven when that happens.

Okay. Senator Awa, go ahead.

Whose idea was it? I. I saw it was introduced to the President. Whose idea was this to ask for a raise?

It was our—it was our Commissioner's ask for her to bring parity with our salaries.

Okay, thank you. Questions, Members?

Okay, thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our agenda. So, I don't know, I can see some wisdom. I guess I should just—let's start to vote, if that's okay. And we'll talk about the second one when we get there.

On the first one, SB 2841, requires the Department of the Attorney General to develop a human trafficking awareness training program to educate and train workers in the transient accommodation sector. Our recommendation on this one is to pass with amendments per the DLIR and DLE's testimony.

We'll transfer the responsibility to DLE instead of the DLIR. We'll accept the Hotel Alliance's amendments, which will allow for external training programs approved by the AG and add third party contractors to the coverage. So people working in at a transient accommodation, but not directly employees of that organization, would also be covered by this.

And then we'll put in some dates. A date for the training program to be ready, we'll say July 1, 2027. Hotels to post the policies by January 1, 2028. And then each transient accommodation employer will have a policy ready by October 1, 2027. And we'll put in a number for the fine, which would be $100 for each separate offense. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard for a vote.

Chair's recommendation on SB 2841 is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Measure's adopted.

Okay. For the Committee on Labor and Technology, same recommendation as JDC, to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on SB 2533. Recommendation of the Chair is... Sorry, 2841. Recommendation of the Chair is pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you. So, on the second one—this is SB 2533, which adjusts the salaries of the Campaign Spending Commission's Executive Director and Associate Director. I mean, it Is kind of an odd situation where we're pegging it to Health. I wouldn't object to pegging it to Ethics, except that Ethics is the same as Health.

So, I mean, maybe that is a better look. I guess maybe I would suggest let's peg it to Ethics. We'll blank out the amounts, let Ways and Means take a look at that.

And we'll just put in the Committee Report what the numbers were in the original Bill and maybe a little explanation about why we changed it to Ethics, as opposed to having a Department of Health, because Ethics is a much more similar organization.

Yeah. And then, could we also, in the Committee Report, put the total appropriation that was requested was 130—139,000.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That'll be great. Thank you, Ms. Chang.

Okay. All right. Any questions or concerns on that course of action? If not, Senator Gabbard.

[Roll Call]

For the Committee on Labor and Technology, same recommendation, to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you very much. Thank you Labor and Technology members for being here. For JDC members, we do have two DM votes at 9:30. 9:30. We're adjourned. Mahalo.

Welcome everyone to the decision-making agenda at 9:30 for the Judiciary Committee. First on our decision-making agenda is SB 2203, establishing the offense of use of a mask or personal disguise by a law enforcement officer.

After consulting with DLE and—the Department of Law Enforcement—and getting input from Honolulu Police Department, the recommendation will be we'll make an exception for law enforcement officers to wear a mask if there is another law enforcement officer that is unmasked, unmasked, who is within the officer's eyesight.

We'll try to address DLE and HPD's concerns about certain officers needing to protect their identity, even if not undercover, by incorporating language suggested by HPD to the undercover exception for officers by adding conducting related duties in support of an undercover assignment or operation.

And which means those people will be able to wear a mask. And for the take, for the helm—for the motorcycle helmets—they wanted to add, take them off as soon as reasonably practical, so, as soon as reasonably practical is the addition. We'll change the term personal disguise to facial coverings.

So, the offense is use of a mask or facial covering by a law enforcement officer. We'll add definitions of law enforcement officer and law enforcement agency. That includes federal, state, and county law enforcement. Some technical amendments and we'll put a bad date on it, make it effective March 22, 2075.

Because this is a tricky topic and I'm not sure this is the final. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Next up, our second and last item on this agenda is SB2442, 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 a statutory mandate to include certain protections against inflation. The recommendation here is to pass with amendments.

We'll go ahead and put a defective date on it. March 22, 2075. Technical amendments will specify that the reference to the Consumer Price Index is for the one for urban Honolulu. Sorry, Honolulu. I know how to pronounce the city I live in.

Leave the appropriation blank and we'll note in the Committee report a recommended amount of. Well, there's two, there's two recommendations.

10%.

Leave the appropriation blank and note in the Committee report a recommended amount of 4.26 million, which represents 30, a 30% increase, which is what the True Cost Coalition is advocating because their costs have risen approximately 40% over the past 10 years. So that'll be in the Committee report. That's it. Questions or concerns? If not Senator Gabard.

SB2442 Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any no votes or reservations? Hearing none. The measures adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. Members and that concludes the business for today. Tomorrow we have a quite long agenda at 9 o'.

Clock. Mahalo.