Senate Standing Committee on Education

That was a call to order. So calling to order. The joint Committee on Community, Committee on Education and Committee on Economic Development and Tourism. Today's Wednesday, February 11th. We are in room 229 and this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

If the hearing is abruptly at end due to technical difficulties, committee we will convene on Friday, February 13th at 1pm in Conference Room 229 with a notice posted on the legislature's website. And due to the number of measures and due to Monday's cancellation of all our committees, we had to juggle everything around.

So you will be given one minute to testify. I hope you will understand that. And if technical issues arise during your Zoom testimony, committee may need to proceed to the next testifier. Written testimony is on file and appreciated. So we have two measures on the joint agenda starting out.

And I want to welcome our Committee on EBT, Chair Linda from Maui, my vice chair, Senator Kidani and your vice chair, Senator Wakai. Okay with that, Senate Bill 3263. First up for University of Hawaii, Matt Elliott. Good afternoon.

Excuse me. Good afternoon. Chair Kim, Chair DeCoite, Vice Chair Kidani, Vice Chair Wakai and Members of the Committee. I'm Matt Elliott, Director of Athletics. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm representing the University of Hawaii Athletics Department. We are in support of bill SB 3263. As we know and we've talked about at length.

NIL is a new challenge for college athletics across the country and in this state. And we believe that it requires a range of solutions to be able to successfully take this on. We've requested made a budget request to help fund the NIL program going forward.

But this endowment program that is outlined in this bill we think makes a lot of sense because not only does it allow us to emphasize the importance of keeping up with the current athletics landscape, but it creates a long term sustainable solution as well.

So while we do still believe that it's important to have immediate short term funding, this endowment is something that makes a lot of sense for us in the future. We have recommended a few modifications with the Bill and those modifications are in our testimony.

But in short, just the request that if the endowment could start at a lower amount, maybe a 2 million total amount instead of 10 million to at least allow us to get started before we're able to raise the full 5 million in matching that is articulated in the bill currently, that would be wonderful.

Second, we've asked if we could in the reporting requirements, not submit individual student athlete data, but aggregate that across teams that would be ideal. And then our third request is just that if a student needs an agent, then the agent should be certified.

But allow students to choose not to have agents because some of our student athletes choose to do this on their own and don't need that. So thank you very much and I'm here for questions.

Okay. Why don't you sit there? Because I don't have the rest. I have Glenn Morimoto is an individual opposition. Carlos Santana in support. Sean Spencer comments and Kyle Orr in support. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Okay. Hearing none. Members, questions? Senator Kidani.

So is prepared to do its part in meeting the dollar to dollar agreement.

That would be- We- We would work on that. We- It's a. The way I understand the bill.

To make that happen.

Yeah, I think we have to do both. We have to raise money for the near term that we can use to fund NAL expectations right now. And then if this bill exists and creates an endowment or if this endowment fund exists, then we would also be trying to raise money to do the matching funds as well.

Thank you.

So how would this work? The $2 million as opposed to establishing the 10 million? How do you see that work?

I was kind of contemplating that if the state, if we were able to raise a million, for example, and the state had a million, then the fund would start with 2 million and we could start getting the interest from that 2 million. If we have to wait until it's a full.

And what's the interest in between?

Well, I understand it's probably 4 or 5% only on that. So it would still, you know, maybe 100,000 a year or something like that.

Okay. Any other- Any other questions? Senator- Senator Fevella?

Yeah, so my question would be, is we going to implement this? Are you saying $2 million? You guys got a whole collect interest, whatever. What is the guarantee that we're going to be able to keep these students going forward?

I mean, I understand you guys talking about how great this thing is, but we're a small island with poor taxpayers with little money. How are we going to compete with the bigger colleges if they decide to put themselves in a por- in a portal? I mean we're going to spend money on these guys come and then they will leave.

How is that going to be secured for the taxpayers going forward? Because not everybody is into taking their taxes and giving it to the university for something like this.

And the reason why I say that because I have a lot of backlash in my community because they don't support it because we have poor people in my community that taxpayers are struggling and we're going to fork out $2 million. You just said now, so clarify if I'm wrong.

You said you could take the $2 million, anticipate you guys gonna raise some funds and then get some interest off the $2 million will sit there. Well, that $2 million can help other programs and other places within the state. And right now we're short.

Now we're going to tell the taxpayers now we're going to renege, giving them their tax break because we can't afford it. But then we're going to give you $2 million that you can put on the side to collect interest. I mean if that's what you just said, I'm not sure if that's what you said.

Initially you needed 10 million and 5 million, but now you guys willing and dealing to just to take anything that you guys can get for us to do the startup funding for this program.

Why not have a university come with skating again to start up your own program and then come back to legislation and say we started this program pretty successful. Can you help us out?

I agree with what you just said because I think that's exactly what we are trying to do. We- This year, we are doing the program without any state funding and our goal is to try to raise 3 million for the NIL program just based on private funding.

So that's the first step which sounds consistent with what you're asking us to do. Then if I understood the bill correctly, it would be to create an endowment for long term investment in NIL. And what we were trying to say is if the state puts up a million then we would try to raise a million.

Because I think that's what the structure is. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that's what I thought the intent was.

Let me just clarify. This bill is not a university bill. This bill is our bill that was introduced and it was done so that there would be a pot of money that would be consistent over the years. Because you cannot touch the corpus of the endowment. You have to leave it there.

Instead of giving 5 million every year to them, it would be a one time 5 million and the requirement is that they match the 5 million. So there would be 10 million in the corpus and then they would get the interest from that going forward.

As long as there's such a thing as NIL at such time that NIL does not exist, then the money would be reverted back to the state.

Thank you, Chair.

Just so you understand, Senator Wakai.

I'm trying to understand the magnitude of what the ask is here because I mean $10 million seems like a lot of money, but in reality it's not a lot of money. When the University of Texas pays Arch Manning $6 million, poof. It's gone with one kid in one year.

No matter how much money we give you, are we ever going to be competitive with like the power five kinds of conferences? Are we just throwing money after hope that we are going to be kind of mediocre in the grand scheme of athletics?

That's why we have set our target to be the best we can be at the level that we're at. As I don't think of it as mediocre in athletics. I think of it as being very successful in the Mountain West Conference, the Big West Conference, the teams that we play against.

And because of the way college sports is structured, if you do really well at the level that you're at, it does give you opportunities to go on and compete at the highest level. So we all know how wonderful our men's volleyball team is when they do really well in the Big West Conference.

They compete, qualify for the national championship. And we can win national championships. So we're not asking to compete at that level. I agree. We're not going to pay one player $6 million. That's not the right solution for us.

Can you give me an ideal? I mean, your highest valued UH athlete the past year was Kansei, your kicker. Can you disclose to us what is his NIL deal?

Um, I have not. I don't think we've disclosed publicly any of our individual student athlete deals.

But if we go down this road of using taxpayer funds, I think the public has every right to know how much we're paying for whoever doing whatever.

Yeah, and I understand that. And that's where I guess we've asked for the modification that we would disclose that by team as opposed to as individual students. I think that is the standard nationally.

But if that's not where we are, then I understand if the money- if- if the money from the state comes and requires individual disclosure, then, you know, we would have to make that choice. I guess I just don't know exactly how the privacy rights work for individual students.

I just wanted to use Kansei as an example because I'm trying to understand we're not going to be paying $6 million for a quarterback. But Kansei's deal gives us kind of an idea of like, did he get $10,000? Did he get $50,000 so that we could kind of right size this appropriation as well?

Because if his NIL deal is small, then maybe we don't need to give you 10 million bucks, right?

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I guess that's where I would say, collectively, we are trying to raise $3 million for our entire athletics department for this year. And then our target was to have $5 million for next year. And that's why we made that budget request. And that would be across all of our teams.

So that is the broad scope of it, and we've provided, you know, breakdowns by team of how we would intend to use that as well. But I'm not- I don't think I'm in a position to be able to disclose individual student athlete privacy information like that.

Is it my recollection for the moment, you don't have to give NIL money to foreign players, only American players or US Citizens, right?

No, we are allowed to give NIL money to international student athletes as well.

In your testimony, you had stated that you folks are going to need to take time to raise those kinds of funds, to match the funds.

And so I find that to be kind of contradictory because you're asking taxpayers for 5 million now and then, but you're not really giving us a clear plan on how the university is planning on raising its funds with the urgency.

So instead of giving us a plan on how you folks are going to be raising funds in an urgent way, you're asking us to scale back on the threshold.

So- So the concern, and I think to Senator Favella's point as well, in addition to taxpayers, is you're asking them to front the cost on this, while hopefully you guys can raise the money without any clear plan. So- So when you say take time, how much time are you guys going to need?

Well, just the reason I think that is because we've been trying to raise money to pay our obligations real time. So that's- Those are the conversations. That's the kind of fundraising we're doing right now. This is a different concept. This is a concept of raising money for an endowment.

So to talk to donors now about we need money, or we're asking money from the private sector to put in an endowment that will then generate some interest, that's just something new. This is a new proposal that has come in this bill, and it's different from what we've been focusing on.

So that's why I'm saying it would take us time to raise 5 million for an endowment purpose.

So are you finding it to be a hindrance to now you guys raising money just because it's an endowment?

No, I'm just saying it's different. We've been focusing on, again, the target was to try to raise 3 million that we would spend this year for our NIL obligations across the department. So that's what we're doing. That's what we've been focused on.

Do you guys have a plan to raise the money?

Yes. I mean, we're as I think we've stated before, we're over 1.6 million in terms of trying to get to that 3 million total for this year. So we're working on that.

But you're not right now, there's no difference in plan on how you guys expect to raise the money, especially if we're asking you to match the funds.

For the endowment, no, we don't have a plan to raise the endowment funds yet. That is a new concept, as Aye, you know, we need to work on that.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. You said. I'm sorry. So it's a new concept, but raising money is raising money, whether it's for an endowment fund or not. It's for NIL. You've been asking for money for NIL.

You just had a regent board member that put a million dollars into an endowment fund.

Right.

Right.

So it's not a new concept. I mean, if people are willing to put money in for an- for NIL, whether it's an endowment or not, and if you're still raising money for this year for 3 million, that means you have no, you're not raising any money for future years.

So, I mean, to me, that's not going to be sustaining at all.

Right. And--

So if you can't raise the money, I mean, and that's the- that's the incentive is that if you want- if you want the 5 million from the state, you have to go out and raise it and you have to match it, and then you guys can use the funds. Senator.

So my question is, it's been a long day. How many student athletes do you guys expect to participate in the NL?

NIL. That's a good question. Yeah, I mean, we're probably in the 60 to 70 range right now. It'll go up, though. I think I would guess over- over 100. Next year is probably more likely.

So I know that you asked to drop the 10mil to 5mil in the endowment for the matching.

Right.

So if I- I did 5 mil and I looked at, say, on 5% interest, you're looking at $250,000 off of 60 players. It's kind of small. Yeah.

Yeah.

And that would be adequate.

No, that's why I think this is just part of a range of solutions. We need dollars that we can spend, real time every year. So that's what we are doing with the private sector. We had also asked for the $5 million from the state, which was, you know, to put into the budget that we could spend.

This endowment concept, I think is another good concept because it does help create some long term sustainable funding that if we can grow to a place where we really are much more self sufficient, this could help us solve, solve these demands.

So how does this, the endowment fund compared to other comparable colleges with a Division 1 athletic program? What's the comparison?

That's a good question. I- I'm not aware of a- of a state match endowment fund. I haven't seen that. It may exist, but I haven't seen that in other places yet.

So of the other, because I know you guys have partnered with some of the Hawaii restaurants and stuff. Those funds that you guys raise, are those funds also used or will possibly be used for matching funds as well, or are those separate? Because I know--

We talked a lot about nutrition for the players and so forth.

Right.

Yeah.

You guys looking at some of those funds as well to be part of the fundraising?

If I understand the bill, the bill said we had to raise matching funds explicitly for NIL for this endowment. If- If that's able to be changed, then obviously I would be very happy to look at other endowments that could be used to match this.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Other colleges, any of them use state funding for NIL?

So this is again, I think the way public, many public universities are functioning right now is that they, either the university, the state, whatever their concept is- is helping them put together the budget for NIL.

But we've seen a wide range of schools commit to the cap of the NIL funding, which is the $20 million you can go all the way up to even with a stable budget, even with a balanced or a budget that had losses.

So what we will wait to see, because your question is very fair, is how does that play out at the end of this year? Nobody has done this before. This is our first year.

My question is, are you aware of any school that is using state dollars, come to the state Legislature and ask them for NIL money?

I'm not aware of anybody else doing this proactively like the way we are.

From what your President, President Henslow have said, is that very few, there's not a whole lot of colleges that actually get the kind of state money that University of Hawaii has that we give.

And I would take her word for it because she's been in a number of positions at different Universities that we tend to give more money. So I can't imagine how those states or colleges would be given state monies for particularly NIL when they're not even giving it to the institutions.

So this is really the fact that we're taking state dollars and using that money to help this. There are a lot of people out there and I've heard from a lot of constituents who are not in favor of using state dollars for NIL to give monies to athletes at this point.

So this is kind of trying to balance it, to give you folks some startup so you can start to raise the funding. But again, it will depend upon how much money that the university can raise. And again, that's your position. Right.

The athletic director has that responsibility to- to raise or to be the leader in raising the monies that is needed for the athletic department. Let me just ask you on the other issue on- on the agents.

So you're saying that these athletes should be able to do this completely on their own and not have an agent or a parent?

I think it should be their choice. That's all I'm saying. Yes.

So. And again, we're trying to protect the student.

Because you're talking about we could potentially thousands or millions of dollars right to a student to not have any kind of guidance. Anybody that's going to be looking after their best interests at this point in time, I find that very difficult to do.

Absolutely.

I think agents can be excellent resources or lawyers or whatever student athletes want to use. All I was suggesting is some of them, an NIL deal might be $1,000 for the whole year.

Right. And that's why we say-

And to force them to.

Or a parent or a guardian, at least somebody there to. That's what the bill says.

Great. Yeah.

And then finally, any state monies, I think the public has a right to know where the money goes. Whether it's by an individual, I mean even foundation. We ask them to disclose where the money's coming from or where the money's going. Unless they say that it is, they want to remain confidential, then we don't know.

But technically it's state money.

Yes, I think the. I understand your point. And if the State Dollars require that kind of disclosure. I understand it. I just am asking or suggesting a modification that doesn't require us to provide or to produce the individual student information. That's all.

Okay. Any other questions? Senator Wakai.

I know you just completed your deal with the Mountain West. What's your take on that? How much is university getting out of that contract?

So the intent as stated by the commissioner. The intent is to keep the distribution approximately the same across the board from what we receive from the Mountain West or what schools receive from the Mountain West. So that's that $3.5 million target. What is different is that our relationship based on our contract was our local TV rights deals.

Local TV rights deal was part of that three and a half million in years past. So we are now in a space where we will get the conference distribution, which hopefully is that number. And then now we are negotiating a local TV rights deal.

And that will be on top of, as opposed to being taken away from or balancing out the meteorites deal. So we have the chance to go additional, get additional resources.

Is there also additional potential with the games that are not going to be covered by the Mountain West deal, nor a Spectrum or whatever local deal?

There's going to be a lot of games that the university could just stream and somehow monetize and perhaps use your own journalism or communication students to get, get even more money to help with the match in this bill.

Yes, those are, all of those games are part of the- either the Mountain West deal or the local rights deal. It's not- there wouldn't be a third avenue for that. The rights already fall within one of. Will fall within one of those two deals.

Right. But let's say it's a girls softball game that neither the Mountain West deal nor your Spectrum contract covers. You could stream that to whoever, wherever the audience is and monetize that, couldn't you?

No, that will go through the Mountain West app. Because they have the right to all of our sports. Yes.

Whether they're broadcasting it or not?

Yeah. That's what this fourth. That's kind of this fourth part is the- the Mountain West app. So anything that we can do locally, we will do locally. Anything that we would do on our own, we would then put up on the Mountain West app.

Senator Kim, question.

Yes. So what percent of UH athletes are- that are funded, are local?

That are funded are local? I don't know. I think about 30%, if I understand correctly. About 30% of current UH athletes are from Hawaii. That's my understanding.

30%. You're asking what percent might be- Might be eligible for getting this NIL?

Yeah. They would all be eligible. In terms of who's getting it right now? I don't know that, but I can find out.

Yes. Appreciate that. I have one last question. It kind of deviates from this, but you have a media- a media agreement contract and I have my notes and I'm not sure what I did with it.

Oh, our multimedia rights?

With Learfield. Yes, that's right.

Yes.

You have a consultant. What does that consultant gets paid? Or the person that's doing the contract?

Oh, the- the consultant that negotiated the previous deal, you're asking?

Oh. Or the people that are doing the contract, what do they get?

No, I'm working on it right now. We don't have a consultant.

You have an agreement, though, right now?

No, there was a deal that was negotiated when the last deal was negotiated, there was a consultant that worked on that deal. There is no consultant working on that deal.

What is the deal? How much the people who we have that deal with makes?

What was the total amount of that contract? I don't want to speculate. I can get you that.

Okay. I'm sorry. I have my numbers because my understanding the guarantee is- is low and the amount to share is really high. It's almost unattainable, which raises a question as to exactly how much that they're getting and how much is the university actually getting?

Oh, you're asking about that? The split with Learfield, with- with the actual third party? Yeah. Oh, yeah, we can give you that. There's a- Every year we know what we get is, it's in the contract, there's a guarantee. So this year it's around 2.8 or 2.9 million.

And then we will know at the end of each year what did they actually generate.

So they, according to my understanding, is they get anywhere from approximately 75% and we get 25%. Does that sound correct?

No, that's not correct. I know that's not correct.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I took the numbers that you guys gave me and I did it. I'm sorry I had to work, but I think that's relevant in the sense of where is the money going?

Right. Oh, absolutely. And I think that is a really important thing for us to be paying very close attention to. And that's why we're now starting the process of negotiating the next version of this deal. Because this deal will expire in a year and a half.

Okay. Because it's 2.5- 2.5 million, and for 25-26 is 2.8 million, right?

Yep, 2.8. I think that's the guarantee this year. That's right.

And so the revenue sharing, though, threshold is 5.8 million, which the chances of meeting that is very.

Yeah, we're not getting there.

Right. We've never gotten to that number.

So I guess we. The question is, what are we paying this entity in order to get the $2.8 million.

Oh, right. So we don't pay them anything. They negotiate all the third party deals. We get the guarantee, then we get the trade. So our trade is also close to 3 million. So it's the 2.8 plus 2.7 or whatever in trade.

And then they keep a portion of what they negotiate on top of that until we get to that 5.2 or whatever number you're- that number that you're talking about.

Which you don't very rarely will get.

Right. We won't get there in this deal. And that's why we're going to negotiate a new deal for next, starting next year.

The question is, how much is the negotiated deals and what percentage of that deals are we actually getting versus what they're getting?

Yeah, okay. That- That we can get that breakdown for you.

Okay. Because the profit sharing line will never be reached.

Not in this deal. No.

Members, any other questions? Yes.

Matt, would you say that you folks are pretty much maxed out on your fundraising efforts? Like you've exhausted all resources, made as many calls as he could, and it's like if anything comes through, then cross fingers, hopefully maybe we'll get a check.

No, not at all. I think we are at the very beginning of rebuilding a fundraising mechanism. We have great support from the foundation, but what we need to do in athletics has a structure where we take all of the different entities. We have booster clubs, we have other third parties that work with us.

We need to bring that all together. We have to have a system for how we engage with our donors. We have- There are so many calls we still have to make. So I think we're right at the very beginning of this, not anywhere near what's next up.

Okay, so if you feel like you're in the beginning of your fundraising efforts, then why can't you match the funds? Why are you asking the tax. Why are you asking us to scale back if you think you guys are only in the beginning? So you folks have raised 1.6 million so far?

For NIL.

For NIL. So being that you guys are just in the beginning, shouldn't you feel confident to know that you guys can match the funds?

Well, I was just hoping that we could get it started the way, again, I may have misunderstood the bill. The way I understood the bill was that if we raise 5 million, the state will then put in 5 and we'll have 10. So my thought was it's going to take us time to get the 5 million endowment.

Could we start at 1 in 1, if we can start at 1 and 1, at least it starts generating some interest. That was the only proposed modification, but if that's not agreeable, then I understand.

Yeah, because you're expressing that it's critical to the NIL program and it's crucial that we get this $5 million, yet you guys aren't willing to have any skin in the game as far as putting your best efforts forward. So during my initial question, you had said, we're just at the beginning.

Okay, great, then you should be able to sell us and close the deal and let us know, you know what, it's going to be rough, but we can do our best. We're going to match it and yeah, let's sign off on it, let's go for it.

But you're not really giving us any kind of faith that you guys are- are able to match this, but yet taxpayers got to front the bill on this.

Okay, yeah, I'm sorry, I'm not giving you any faith. I think we have to raise money aggressively to cover our obligations right now. So that's, you know, trying to get the 3 million in NIL, trying to get additional dollars for operations, another 2 or 3 million to cover our operations.

So those things are real time to make sure our budget is balanced this year. In addition, now to raise $5 million for an endowment for NIL will be another- another obligation for us. So all of those things combined are absolutely us going all in to try to accomplish them.

And if- if we- if the endowment doesn't kick in until it hits 10 million. I understand. I was just saying that maybe as part of the solution, we could start it sooner.

Okay.

I just want to make sure the program understands that on the ledge side, we're willing to work with the program if in the event you guys can match the funds, but you have to be able to meet us at that level instead of just, oh, well, we need more time, like, okay, well then the $5 million you're asking us to front you guys, but then you're only willing to maybe invest or maybe committed to a smaller portion of that.

So- So that was basically my point is we're screaming that this is existential and this is critical, but that yet when we ask you guys to participate, then it's like, oh, well, hold on, we need to pull back a little bit. So there's just a little bit of a contradictory conversation that's happening.

And I don't think that taxpayer payers should be putting up all the costs. And you guys are playing the safe route. Taxpayers are not paying the safe route. So that's my comment. Chair, thank you.

Okay.

I want to just caution you when you say limited a million, if you're- if there's no guarantee that after that 1 million you're going to get the other 4 million. That's how the budget works. You get it when we pass it next year. Come we may not have any money to give.

You may, you might not ever get up the 4 million, other $4 million. Are you aware of that?

Okay.

I was wondering if we could do it as a, a minimum of two up to 10, you know, something like that. That's what I was.

But you got to understand the legislative process. We work year to year. So we either give you the money now and you raise it and you match it or you don't get it. And there's no guarantee you're going to get anything done next year. I'm just saying that's just how it goes.

So you have to be strategic in how you folks propose some of your proposals. Because yeah, if you ask for a million and you're going to raise a million, then there's no telling next year if you're going to get anymore. Then another bill might have to come, have to be done. Right. I mean there's no guarantee. So.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Any other last minute questions? No. Okay, thank you. Stay there because you're going to testify on the next Bill, which is Senate Bill 3261 for this Bill that talks about agents.

Yep. So good afternoon again. Matt Elliott. On behalf of the University of Hawaii Director of athletics, the this Bill, SB 3261, we support. We believe that there is a good state law already in place to govern how agents conduct their business and interact with clients anywhere in the state.

And what this Bill does is add name, image and likeness responsibilities that if an agent uses those with any clients or works on that content with any client, then they would have to follow the state certification, state registration rules and that helps protect our student athletes.

We think that makes a lot of sense and we're very appreciative of this Bill being introduced. Happy to take questions.

Members, any questions on this measure? Not. Thank you very much. Decision making. Okay, we're going into decision making. On. Senate Bill 3263 is relating to the Name, Image and Likeness Endowment. The recommendation is to to pass as is and the appropriation amount on page four.

We're going to blank it out for now and Ways and Means can look at that and see if they want to put a Thousand. I mean, a million or whatever it is. The amount, the recommendation, of course, is of the Bill is 5 million. So any discussion? Members the recommendation hearing None.

For Committee on education to pass 3263 with a SD1. I'm sorry, there's no SD1. Yeah, well, if we blank out them all, we have to do an SD1. Yeah.

So. Senate Bill 3263 with an amendment. Chair I Vice Chair both side. Senator Fukunaga. Excuse. Senator Hashimoto. Hi. Senator Deor I Measures adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Committee on Committee on Economic Development Tourism. Same recommendation. Any discussion Seeing None. Vice Chair for the vote Chair goes Aye.

I vote with reservation. Senator Fukunaga. Excuse. Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Favela aye show your recommendations adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. And For Senate Bill 3261, the recommendation is to pass with an SD 1 on Technical and non substantive amendments. For purposes of clarity and consistency. Chair votes I Senator Kidani.

Senate Bill 3261. Chair votes aye, Vice Chair votes aye Senator Fukunaga. Excused Senator Hashimoto Aye. Senator DeCoite aye. Measures adopted. Madam Chair. Thank you.

Committee on Economic Development Tourism. Same recommendation. Any discussion? See None. Vice Chair for vote, Chair votes aye.

Yes, Senator Fukunaga. Senator Kim. Aye. Senator Fabella. Aye. Chair Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Committee on.

I'm going to call the Committee on Education to order again. The hearing is being streamed live and Today is Wednesday 2026 in room 229. We are being streamed live and you folks know the all the rigamarole roughly ends. We're going to resume on Friday February 13th and you're limited to a one minute testimony.

So with that we are going to start off with Senate Bills 896 and Senate Bill 895. Members, we're going to decision make on this right now. In the event I lose quorum, we do need to amend these bills to begin with.

And so these two measures of the first measure, Senate Bill 896 is relating to education in it's a proposed. It's a short term. Short term. It's a short form Bill. And we did post a SD1 online and this would be to have a reporting system for capital improvement projects.

And so what happens is we will amend it and then so the recommendation will be passed Senate Bill 896 with amendments by inserting the provisions of the proposed SD1 the then recommitting the Bill to the Committee on Education.

And then we will then schedule for a public hearing on this measure at the next or the later hearing and we will post that notice. So if you have any concerns about the two amendments that we're making, you will have a chance to testify on that when we schedule it for a formal hearing.

So with that Members, I want to recommend that we amend Senate Bill 896 to the SD1 that was posted. Any discussion Hearing None. You okay. Vice Chair, if you will take the vote to amend SB896 to propose SD1.

Or Senate Bill 896 SD 1 chair votes aye. Pass amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Fukunaga excused. Senator Hashimoto aye send Senator Decoite. measures adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. And the next Bill 895 similarly it is a short form Bill and this authorizes the Board of Education to adopt rules and repeal certain requirements for the Department of Education and Chartered Schools Commission to share data with the Department of Human Services.

And so we will the recommendation is to amend Senate Bill 895 with the proposed SD1.

Any discussion not chair votes ayeI Senate Bill 895. SD1 Chair votes aye passed with amendments. Share both sides. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Fukunaka excused. Senator Hashimoto. Senator Decoy measures adopted. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Which takes us to our first item for public hearing which is Senate Bill 2877. This requires Department of Education to establish a one year student authored book publication pilot program for fifth graders at Kalihi Public elementary schools. It requires a report at the Legislature and appropriates funds.

First item, first person testifying is Keith Ayashi for the Department of Education.

Hi, good afternoon. Chair Kim, Vice chair Kidani and Members of the Committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The Department truly appreciates the intent of this Bill. A published book is something to be very proud of and it is something that lasts a lifetime.

While the Department does have reservation with the proposed law that requires fifth graders to publish, we do and will continue to encourage publishing opportunities, classroom anthologies and school showcases. We will continue to support writing portfolios, student choice in demonstrating their learning. With these efforts, we do expect to continue to see bookmaking in our schools.

We have examples coming right from the Kalihi Area. Farrington High School several years ago published a book called Voices which was a compilation of a lengthy project with their English learner newcomer program. Kapalama elementary is actually getting ready for a book signing for a book that they have worked on for a three year project.

And Kaivai has two school published books, though these two books aren't copyrighted like the two that I mentioned before. We will continue to support this effort, but we do ask that the schools be given the professional discretion to determine when and how the books will be decided upon. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you. Cheryl Burgart okay, we have, let's see, 10 in support, none opposing. They're not signed up for to speak. So if there anyone here wishing to testify on this measure hearing None. Questions? Members? Heidi. So Heidi, I'm reading from your testimony folks. Submitted, right? Because you read that testimony. That wasn't what was submitted to us.

And basically the testimony submitted from the superintendent Kitayashi says respectfully the Department cannot support this Bill in its current form at this time given the extensive literacy investments underway in Kalihi through the comprehensive Literacy State Department grant, which requires significant time and effort from Kalihi schools.

Additionally, given the fiscal constraints facing the Department, Department feels that this might be better considered at a future time. However, the Department appreciates the legislature's consideration of this public pilot project and looks forward to continued collaboration. So that's the official statement of the.

That was the testimony. And then I hope that my oral testimony explained further our thinking on this Bill. We do think it is a an excellent idea if you'd like us to revise our testimony to reflect my oral Testimony.

Question that testimony only because it states the attitude or the intent of doe. Did you folks even check with some of the schools that this, this thing would go?

Yes, we did. We checked with all of the schools that are under the CLSD grant and they echoed. My testimony today echoes their sentiments. They are very supportive of bookmaking and book publishing.

We, the Department feels a law is not necessary at this time and because the Bill does come with funding, the Department has made a concerted effort this session not to ask for funding that is not already included in our board approved budget.

Okay, so if you check our testimony, there's a testimony from the Hiliki School. School. Yes, in support of it.

The students of the elementary come from diverse backgrounds with over 12 languages spoken on campus including origins from Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Philippines, Palau, continental U.S. a student authored publication program will provide each student with the opportunity to share their unique thoughts, culture and dreams.

The final publication would also serve as a lifelong memory to be shared with their families or house the school library permanently. For these reasons we speak respectfully. Urge you support this pilot program. We have another one from Kerry Higa from Lanakila Elementary School.

So these are schools in which we're not telling you to put together a completely new program. This is like a capstone. This is, this will encompass everything that they're learning and allow students to be creative. Allow students to be able to have confidence that they can become a published author. Among so many other benefits that's in here.

And so it just troubles me that the DOE is really not focused on how we're delivering our education and not being creative in this. I mean you guys spend what, how many, how many hundred thousands of dollars on trips. And you're saying that this is a financial burden?

No, we're not saying it's a financial.

Constraints facing this through the state and. Correct.

So we're not asking for additional funding. And the two schools that have expressed great interest, which is wonderful, we will work with those schools within our existing budget and see if they are serious about doing that next year. How can we support them?

We are not asking for additional funding from the Legislature and we are also stating that we don't think that in order to do this it needs to become a law.

Well, it seems like we can't get DOE to do anything unless it becomes a law. And when it doesn't become a law, you guys add on. You know it seems to me that your folks goal is to add more positions at the Executive level that doesn't directly impact student learning.

And our goal here is to transform the way education is being delivered in the classroom room so we can engage the student. So it could be a student focused type of learning which is difficult to get. DOE to come on board.

A simple project as this that would really benefit the Title 1 schools, which is what we're trying to do. Members, questions. Senator of the court.

Thank you. Heidi. I just want to correct you. There seems to be some inconsistency with your written testimony than with your oral testimony. So I'm going to stay with your written testimony that says the Department cannot support the Bill. Then it says a lying down.

Given the fiscal constraints facing the state, the Department feels that this might be better considered at a future time. I don't. You have HSTA that's supporting this Bill. You have Teachers for America Hawaii supporting this Bill. DOE is the only one opposing this Bill. So where are your guys priorities?

Because I find it to just be flooring that you would have any opposition to this Bill, to this pilot project. I'm hoping that it can be successful so we can bring it over to the west side. I think that this is a start of a very, very great idea. Are you watering down your oral testimony now?

Because the written testimony is very clear. Respectfully, the Department cannot support the Bill.

Correct. And we, we are not supporting bills due to the fiscal constraints of our state that ask for additional funding.

You guys just asked us for $7 million for engineers at the Wham briefing. So please, nobody is buying that, but go ahead.

Well, Aye, Aye, I stand by that testimony. And we do support the content of this Bill. We do support both book publishing. Our schools can do book publishing without a Bill and that's what the Department stands on.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I have to agree with my colleague. We have to create bills to tell you guys how to do your jobs. Other guys, you guys continue to rake taxpayers asking for more money upon more money. But finally, when there's a good Bill promoting, you folks are the only one opposing.

So again the priorities are really off with the doe. So I'm just going to make that comment. Maybe I'll circle back on a follow up later. But I'll say that for now your, your priorities is off. Heidi, go ahead. Chair. Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to state that when the Ways and Means Committee visited, I believe it was Molokai. Kauai. Kauai. Yeah. That they had done a published book and I'm not sure that they had requested additional funding. I don't know where they got the funding from. Whether it was fundraising or what.

But I want you to know that there is precedent that it's being done in the schools.

Yes, I'm familiar with that project and it was fabulous.

So then why aren't the DOE being aggressive and trying to put it into the rest of the schools? Why does it have to take us to do a Bill?

We do have schools who do book publishing.

Yeah. We want it across the board. We don't want it at just certain schools so that the Khalil schools, the Waianae schools, we seems to be the last ones to get anything because of. I don't know what it is, but there's no equity. And so we want to put this pilot together so that if.

And I know it's going to work across the board. I know it's going to work, because you know what? I'm not even going to ask the state for money. We're going to go out and get the money. We're going to get donations from the community. Even if we have to go, go Fund me, get a book.

But this is stuff that DOE should be trying to do. How are they not wanting to be in front of this?

Okay, I hear you. And we do support bookmaking and book publishing and literacy. We're just not asking for funding to make that happen.

But it's not being implemented in the schools. How much do you think this project would cost?

I would have to look at the number of students. I couldn't tell you off.

So then how would you know if it's a financial burden if you haven't pulled the numbers we have?

We're. I'll go back and say we're not asking for funding to do this, but we do support the idea. And bookmaking is a very important and very valuable project for the students.

Sorry that it's a fiscal constraint. And as Senator Coy point out, if you don't even look at the numbers, how do you know how much it's going to cost?

Understood.

You have any idea on top of your head? What do you think of my class?

I would need to know the number of students we're talking about.

How many fifth graders in eight Kali schools?

I couldn't tell you. Off topic.

I estimate maybe 30 in a class and maybe two to three in a class. I mean, three classes in each school times eight. We're talking about maybe 720 kids. Okay. You times that by how much you think it costs to do a book?

I couldn't tell you. And it's not an exorbitant Cost. We're not saying that it's an exorbitant cost.

No, you're saying it's a fiscal constraint.

What we're saying is we don't need additional funding for schools who are interested in publishing books for the 2627 school year.

Yeah, every child should publish a book. So we're talking basically $50 a book. So the total cost for this program could be as little as 30,000, as much as 50 to 60 thousand dollars. That's one Korea trip. One Korea trip that you guys took out of 14.

This is not even one salary that you folks are asking to Fund. Two deputies. Two deputies. You guys are asking for that money. Does it impact our students and yet something that will impact our students? I'm sorry, I'm very passionate on this. Something that impacts our students. You guys say it's a fiscal constraint. This is.

This is terrible. You folks advocating for your students, Advocating for them, especially for some of these schools that are title one and no. You take away programs, you take away the program at Kaivai, you take away these programs that bring kids to school. Instead, they stay home, they're absent, and they don't learn.

I just want to be clear. We're not saying we can't do it because of fiscal constraints. We don't need additional funding.

I was saying I'm going to raise the money.

Understood.

What's understood?

What you've just shared.

Okay, so we raised the money and what the schools. You folks are still not going to support this?

We do support this. We do support.

Let me get you on the record. So if we raise the money for this, you folks will support this measure.

For all of the Kalihi? We will check with the pilot.

To be integrated in their school. I would not be a standalone program, but to be integrated so that it could be part of their literacy already. Part of whatever it is that the school is learning. Like for Kawai, it could be. They could be writing about the Stream Edge program. They could be writing about their culture.

They could be writing about Hawaiian culture.

Correct. And I think with what you just shared, we can go back to the schools and get their input. I don't think any school would say, no, we don't want to do bookmaking.

It might not be fifth grade and it might not be all students, but I can survey those schools to let you know what they would be pursuing. We know we have two schools that provided testimony who have already said they would commit to serving all fifth graders.

And with this project, so that we have the answer for already survey all.

Of your schools for any kinds of projects. Do you survey your schools?

We tip the schools typically decide on the learning activities.

Let me ask you, did you survey all the schools? When you guys implemented the kindergarten assessments that cost a million dollars, did you guys survey the schools? Because I know there are a lot of pushback for the schools.

That was a law.

Well, and this is going to be the law.

I'm just giving the Department.

I just have a hard time when you folks pick and choose on when you want to survey the schools and when you don't survey the schools. You don't survey the schools. When you ask for the principal, which principal would lead the school. So you know to then fall back and say you're going to survey the schools.

I find that very disingenuous. Any other questions?

So are you willing to change your written testimony and give us an oral testimony in support.

Not in support of requiring all of the Kalihi schools and accepting the additional funding.

See, this is why we have to put stuff into law. Because the department's priorities are all over the place. You guys just spent $4 million on work related travel. I mean, I don't want to have to bring out all of your guys numbers, but the priorities are off.

And when the Committee is suggesting that students create their own book with pride that they can take home or they can share in the future. I mean, up in Lanai, Kauai, they had it in the library. It was so exciting. And you're telling us that you can't support it because of financial restraints.

I find it very hard to believe that Department is fiscally responsible nowadays. So I mean, again, unless you're not going to change your oral testimony and support even after the chair has suggested that we'll raise our own money. So you're not even willing to support that in your oral testimony?

Please don't give me a I will stick to a body test comment. Yeah, okay. I'm just saying I would hate to be the one on the record not supporting a Bill like this. And speaking of you being here, where is your superintendent? Why is he not here?

He is on a work related activity right now.

So he's on a trip. Him and Camille is on a trip. What that costs. Okay, again, you know, it's like how does that impact our students? And we're talking about funding. You left over $40 million worth of Medicaid reimbursements on the table. I mean, come on, we're talking about $50,000 maximum for this program.

$40 million that you guys, you didn't pursue for whatever reasons you've given us, right?

I wouldn't say right, but we have if this is going to be another conversation.

So what we're trying to do is get the Department to be consistent as they look at how they're delivering education, how they're spending the money. You folks send a testimony opposing the trip moratorial. These are all monies in which the. To help us be more efficient.

And you come in and the only time you raise physical constraints is on this program. You don't raise constraints with anything else.

Again, I'll stick to my oral testimony. We support the program. We support the idea. You can't just support it to be a law.

You cannot just support it verbally. You have to support it in your actions. And so if you are actually implementing this program, fine, we don't need a law. But you're not and it's not consistent across the board. There's no school in Kalii that each individual child has published a book.

I know Kapalama is doing their school book, but not individual. You should have seen the pride on these kids faces on Kauai. They came and presented to us. I did see that.

It was wonderful.

Yes. So why didn't that inspire you as. As doe to want to put something like this or something similar. I'm not saying it had to be the exact same thing. But there's no, there's no creativeness. There's no bringing this to, to the students so that they want to come to school.

They take pride in the school and they. And fifth grade is because they're at that age, they're going to go to intermediate school, high school. Very difficult at that point. But they build the confidence as they move on. You know, we have to build it. That's why we have early education.

So we build these things at a young age so that the child goes on to feel empowered and their families feel proud and the families are empowered and the families want to get involved. See, it's all connected and that's why there's a big disconnect. Big disconnect.

And if there's one thing we're going to try to change here is we're going to try to change this disconnection and we're going to try to make it to be student centered learning that meets this age. Now that we're in, we're not in industrial age anymore.

So you guys better come on board because otherwise we're going to have to do it by laws. You know, starting with this. Starting with some of the other bills that we have.

Yeah, I mean, I just see it as a no brainer. HSTA supports Teachers for America, Hawaii support. I could probably count on one hand any time that I've seen the DOE submit testimony in opposition to a Bill on Education Committee.

So I mean, either you guys are not intending on giving our kids a fighting chance or I don't know, maybe just, I don't know, it's just very disheartening to see something as simple as a student issued book. You folks would oppose it and you don't need to give me your PC comment. We've heard it a million times.

Again, we do support the intent of the Bill, but again, you're not really giving our students a fighting chance. So. So I'll just say that. Chair, thank you.

Thank you. We're moving on to Senate Bill 2793 relating to individual sports. Authorized homeschool high school age students to participate as unattached competitors in individual sports available to the public high school that students would otherwise be required to attend. And let's see, we have. See, that's what happens when I take things out of order.

Department of Education, Kita Yashi, who's not here but his representative surely is.

Good afternoon Chair Kim. Vice Chair Kidani, Heidi Armstrong. Again, the Department stands on its written testimony which provides comments on this measure.

The Department expresses concerns regarding SB 2793 as allowing homeschool students to participate in public school athletics, conflicts with administrative rules, placing total educational responsibility on parents, undermines the team based nature of interscholastic sports and creates funding safety and academic eligibility oversight challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Let's see. We have a late testimony from Daniel Lopez in opposition and another by Demelo and support. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure hearing? None. Anybody? Any questions? Senator Kidani, any questions? No? Okay, next item. Senate Bill 2880 relating to education clarifies the chart.

Public charter school teachers are eligible for incentives under the Teacher National Board Certification Incentive Program. Again we have OSATUI from HSTA.

Good afternoon Chair and Vice Chair. I'm Sarah Milianta Laff and on behalf of OSOTUI and HSTA we support this. We that our nationally board certified teachers are the best and brightest of our profession and we want to encourage more people to seek out the certification.

We know those who are certified are compensated at a higher level and teacher compensation helps teacher retainment. Also, it's really hard to get the certification. So if the teachers have gone through this, it's really important that they are compensated at the fair level. So it makes sense for us to expand this to charter schools. Mahalo.

Thank you. Doe Ashi.

Good afternoon. Chair, vice chair, Members the Committee. Sean Bacon from the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony in. Support and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Ed. No. Or charter schools. Anybody from charter schools? Okay. Leilani DeMelo in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Sorry. How did I miss you?

We just wanted. Speaking on behalf of the board, Mitsuhiga Licensing Specialists. We support this Bill and we agree with what HSTA said about that our charter schools deserve the same recognition for national board. And they do. But this Bill clarifies that charter school teachers who are national board certified should also receive this bonus.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Sorry that I missed you. Members, any questions?

Yeah. What's the total cost for this?

Senator Kidani, who's that question for?

Does anybody know what the total number of and what the cost would be at 5,000 per charter schools?

DOE. Anybody?

I know the DOE number that I told you volunteers. The number of charter schools.

Number of teachers it would probably affect. Or is that the question is correct? Yeah. Number of charter school teachers that could possibly. Okay, can you send that to us? Yes, before it moves on. Thank you.

Do you have any idea I might be able to try and get that information? Some. Some charter school teachers have switched schools because there was kind of this whole charter school like nothing terrifying and they didn't want to take away. Take the $5,000 that would go toward a certain program. So that's why we want to clarify.

But I can find out for you.

Okay. I appreciate that. Okay. No other questions. We will move on. Senate Bill 2754 relating to civic education establishes a civic education grant program to provide support to public middle intermediate schools and providing civic education to students. Students to Department approved programming. Establish a civic education trust Fund. Keith Hayashi, recommendation.

Good afternoon again, Chair. Vice Chair Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. We support establishing a grant program and trust Fund that strengthens civic education during the critical middle school school years.

And we are also requesting a technical amendment to update a specific office name that is included in the Bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Lastman. Shane, Did I say that correctly? Testifying for White Commission of Status of Women. Not here. Kiahi Davis, the Judiciary. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani and Members of the Senate Committee on Education. I am Keahe Davis, program specialist for the Commission to Promote and Advance Civic Education The PACE Commission strongly supports Senate Bill 2754. The PACE Commission recently surveyed 883 educators statewide. The data is clear.

Only 17% of DOE teachers receive civics specific professional development even once a year, and only 26% of middle school teachers have adequate civics materials. When asked about their biggest challenge, 56% of teachers set too much pressure to teach other content because without dedicated funding, civics gets pushed aside.

Cynic Mill 2754 provides sustainable funding to expand successful programs such as Schools of Democracy and the center for Civic Education Project Community across Hawaii. Every student deserves high quality civic education, regardless of which school they attend. This Bill makes that possible by affirming that civic education is a core public good essential to the health of our democracy.

We respectfully urge you to pass Senate Bill 2754 and I am available for any questions. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Support on Zoom Aloha Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani. Aloha Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani and Members of the Education Committee. My name is an and I'm a public health student on Oahu. Thank you for letting me testify in strong support of SB2754.

I grew up attending Hawaii Public Schools and never learned how to follow bills, present testimony, or talk with lawmakers. To fill in this gap, I searched for opportunities and joined Hawaii Youth Food Council and Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council.

Hawaii DOE schools didn't teach me how to do what I'm doing now, reading a Bill and presenting testimony. I learned these skills actually from joining advocacy groups that I looked for on my own.

It's beneficial to have civic education programs in school like Punahou School Democracy Program, which teaches kindergarteners to be civically engaged so that students can shift from being a spectator to being a participant in our evolving intercultural society. I urge you to support SB2754 so we can care about public health. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing None. Questions? Members, I have a question, I guess for Kahi. So this grant funding, you said that it would be sustainable funding, so how sustainable would that be?

So sustainable funding would mean that a trust Fund would be created so that going forward any initiatives can be sustained in terms of like short term funding, which typically happens now.

Say there's a grant program that comes through that may provide funding for maybe two to three years and then once that funding is done, it's up to like schools to continue the program. But where is the funding going to come from to continue that. Right. So with this structure, there is a trust Fund created.

Funds can be, or money can be put into that trust Fund via, you know, legislatively or through private funds to continue programs so that schools have the opportunity, once you're engaging in these civics programs, to continue them going forward.

So it's long term sustainability for these programs and sort of like say if we have to rely on maybe federal funding for a particular program that runs, as I said, like maybe 23 years, once that funding is gone, then how does the program sustain itself from that point on?

So what if. Yeah, what if there's no funding? Then we get funding.

Yeah. So. And that's where we, the PACE Commission can step in, working with, you know, folks that we reach out to, to collaborate on. If there are funding sources that we can look at, we can engage with.

We work with programs like Icivics, CivicSnow, national coalitions that we can collaborate with in terms of where are the possibilities for funding coming in, particularly for civics education.

So when you say civics education, is it just. It's not only for the teachers? Correct. Right. So part. Exactly. To train the teachers as well as the students.

Exactly. Because the idea here is that to sustain our democracy, it is, you know, it's necessary to engage students. And in order to engage students effectively, teachers need to be trained in what pedagogically works.

What are the most up to date methods for really reaching out and engaging with students so that they critically or they really understand the impact that they can have within their community and the state and the nation as a whole.

As far as you know, is there. A. Civic education program that is consistent in the DOE right now?

There is. Well, there is an opportunity for civic education, particularly for middle school, intermediate school students or, you know, that adolescent age group. There's an opportunity to have highly impactful civic education curriculum.

And as I said, in terms of consistently being able to provide that, I don't think the mechanism is there right now, but it could be if we have such a program as a trust Fund with grant opportunities for individual schools to apply for a grant.

So similarly, there are programs now to do book authorship. It's not there, but potentially it could be similarly to Cervix, that there's some programs, but it's not anything that's consistent across the board. Your assessment?

I think this Bill gives us the opportunity to be consistently engaging with students and teachers year after year, which I think is the purpose of this Bill.

If the funding somehow dries up then is it going to fall upon DOE and the Legislature to then have to support it?

I think the structure of this gives us the opportunity to seek funds to put into that trust Fund. Right.

So as you know, working with the PACE Commission and the commissioners on the PACE Commission, they said we've got a pretty broad reach as to folks that we can reach out to and say, you know, what are you doing in your state or in your particular community?

What organizations are you working with that are bringing in funds because they are particularly focused, hyper focused on civic education, particularly on the environment we're in today.

Who would run the trust Fund?

So the trust Fund would be within, of course, within the state treasury, but then would be run within the doe. Right.

So the DOE would run this trust Fund and to get the funding they'd have to go after it, which we heard earlier, that, I don't know, hit or miss.

Right, Right. Well, there's an opportunity though that for organizations like the PACE Commission to actually seek funding with private organizations and the like to put into that trust Fund.

Right. But somebody got to go after that. You're saying that it's within the. Okay, Members, any more questions?

Yes, I have a question. So is this supposed to be part of the daily curriculum or an elective? I think, you know, ask DOE that. Right. Got to ask DOE that.

Yeah. So this doesn't, this, as I said, this provides for a structure for sustaining civics education programs. It doesn't mandate what exactly what exact programs are being used.

Okay, so it could be an elective or an after school program.

Yes, it could be elective. Could be an after school program. Right. The idea here is we want to engage with students so that they know that they in turn can become responsible citizens within the community that they live in.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, can we have the oe? So you folks, you. You're in support of this measure? Yes. Which surprises me because you are just opposed to something. So how does this work? How would this work and why are you supporting it?

Okay, the, the Department would have a trust Fund that would get funding from philanthropic partners, PACE Commission, etc. Going into the trust Fund, then especially our middle schoolers would have the opportunity, schools would have the opportunity to apply for projects or to submit projects, special projects, to get funding.

And that funding would come from this Fund that would be funding in addition to their weighted student formula funds that they already have for their schools.

So do you see this as an integrated program or individual program per student?

Well, I think when we look at, I know Massachusetts has this program and I did look up what they use their trust, their funding for and it is just like what was just shared. It's for professional development, it's for experiential opportunities for students.

It gives additional funding for innovative civic engagement projects that students may come up with that relate to a passion that they have.

But I think what I'm hearing is that it's not just a student's passion or several students passion, but it should be an integrated type of program, civics education across the board.

And that's why teachers need to be trained or exposed to more of this so that they can in fact teach the students and not be a one off kind of thing.

Correct. And our social studies standards do have from K12, a strand that goes across all grade levels that states and this isn't the exact wording and Rosanna, you can help me where based on the content that was learned for that grade level, students have the opportunity to take informed action. And that's what we.

And that informed action could be an action from their environmental unit, it could be from their government unit, it could be from whatever they're studying. So the standards embed the opportunity and the expectation for civic engagement to be a part of all grade level social studies. The professional development is continuing, it will be ongoing.

And this Bill provides an opportunity for special projects or additional projects that go above what the school can Fund, an opportunity for those to get funded.

Okay, here lies my issue. So we heard you earlier talk about a program that's going to be fiscal constraint, no money. And here you have this program that you're embracing which is going to cost money. It's going to have to get funding.

You could have had a trust Fund for publishing, you could have recommended that and be in support. And yet somehow. And this program is going to be more money than what we're looking at as the startup for publishing.

So again, this consistency from the DOE as to where and how you folks are looking at some of the these programs really concerns me. Right. You see the inconsistency.

Aye. I will still go back to we fully support student books and student publishing, we support civic engagement opportunities. And in this case we're not asking for additional money from the Legislature.

But you may have to at some point if there's no money and you can't raise the money. Right.

Well, I think then this opportunity might not be available, but the opportunity to teach civics education will still be available and the opportunity for students to take informed action will still be available.

I would Hope that you had that same attitude earlier because this first line says Department supports this, whereas in the other case we cannot support. So again, I find a huge inconsistency going on, Senator.

So do you believe that a trust Fund is the best way to set this up? Because when you take a look at audit reports, generally they've been recommending that we close a lot of our trust funds. Right.

I think trust Fund is an opportunity and I would have to defer that question and I can get back to you.

So there was no, you know, and I don't know if this is your Bill or what, but I guess was there any thought of the foundation doing this? Public school foundation because it's mostly philanthropic dollars. Right?

Correct. Correct. But I will get back to you with.

Well, because it would be good to understand how many trust funds does DOE have? I know other departments have it. Okay. Right. And how are we doing with our management of those other type of funds if, if this does move forward? So. Okay, I'll get that information. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I guess the question is big, is how many trust funds do the deal have?

That's. Aye, I'm going to get that information to you. Aye, I don't know offhand.

We don't know any. Maybe. Does Border Education know, you know, how many trust funds the DOE have?

What was the question?

How many trust funds?

I don't know.

We don't know. I didn't even know we had trust funds for the. Interesting. Anybody know? Well, maybe, maybe Chat. GPT knows.

Yeah, I don't know either.

This point. Senator Court, did you have question? No. Questions? No. Okay, thank you very much. Senate Bill 3279, also relating to the Department of Education establishes the Board of Education in internal audit office to conduct program and fiscal evaluations. The Department of Education's key strategic initiatives to identify program improvements and provide other benefits.

Requires the Board of Education to establish standing Committee with a scope that includes audit related responsibilities. Prohibits the Department of education from expending FY2627 appropriated monies for certain auditor evaluation specialists and related positions and expenses.

Let's see.

Superintendent, Department of Ed.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Tammy Chun, Department of Education. The Department of Education provides comments on the Bill. We are primarily pointing out concerns with two things. One is the timeline that's in the Bill. The Bill would leave the Department of Education or the Board of Education without an internal audit office for one year as currently written.

And the second is the personnel impacts of the way that this, the staffing Would transition. Thank you. Thank you.

Board of Education. The board stands on its testimony. Chair and your testimony is. Would you explain your testimony for the public? You gotta stand.

Yeah. You have the written testimony in front of you. Chairman.

Don'T know what you write your testimony. Yeah.

The testimony is posted online as well. But to summarize the testimony from the board. Thank you. The board will. Is in the process of amending its bylaws as you now in order for us to create any standing Committee, it requires amending our bylaws.

The plan right now is to propose an amendment to the bylaws at the board General business meeting tomorrow. And then if the board passes that recommendation to amend the bylaws and it would stand up an audit Committee at the March board meeting. So then that would mean that the board would have four standing committees.

As you know, the board has a finance and Infrastructure Committee, Student Achievement Committee and a human resources Committee. Over the past few years, it was the finance and Infrastructure Committee that had the audit responsibility.

So what this would do obviously is take that responsibility and create a standing Committee for audits, but that sole responsibility to receive and review all audits externally internal to the Department and then make recommendations to the board for action if necessary.

Okay, so you folks are doing what the Bill is asking for.

At least partly. Yeah. But the. It doesn't address the. In our testimony, we don't address the testimony from the Department regarding the timeline. And you know how that would result in some gaps perhaps if there's a transition and so on. So.

But if the Senate and the Legislature in General would like the board to work with all of you, to work out that it's a surmountable problem. It's not insurmountable.

Okay, thank you. We have questions. Johnny May Perry in this of court. Megan Blek also in support. Anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure hearing? None. Members, questions? I have one question, Roy. So external or internal audits, would that include the state auditors audits?

It's not clear from. From, as you know, the Department, we have an office of internal audits. Right. So whenever there's an external audit generally is generated from the Legislature that's usually farmed out to the state auditor's office.

So I'm not clear as to whether or not shifting existing staff under the direct purview of the board will mean that the current internal audit office will be delegated to do program audits, performance audits and things like that. Yeah.

As you well know, Senator, the audits come in many flavors and so the internal audits basically are fiscal in nature. Right. For example, the internal audit has a hotline that anyone from the public can call and say, zero, they have some concerns about the school's lunch money Fund or whatever the case may be.

That would trigger the internal audit office to take a look at that. The office also does on a regular scheduled basis audits of every school in the system. But given the capacity they have, obviously they cannot complete all 250 schools in one year. It's usually on a five to six year cycle that they get to every school.

So it's really no different than restaurant inspections or all the rest of it. Obviously, the government doesn't have the capacity to inspect every restaurant every year. So it's done on a cyclical basis.

So would this Committee then possibly review external audits and then recommend the board as to taking it up or.

Yes, yes, because, for example, as you all know, because you get a lot of audits not just from the state auditor's office, but from other sources as well. Some audits are. The results are benign in nature. Right. The majority of the internal audit reports are everything looks good, everything complies with existing standard operating procedures and so on.

So at that point it probably is not necessary for the audit. The audience Again, the board hasn't passed it yet, but say if the board does set up an audit Committee, I would think they would not recommend that General business. We can take up audits that are neutral.

But of course, if the audit, such as the heat abatement audit, I suspect. Obviously they would recommend driver's ed audit. The driver's ed. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, we are on our last item. Believe it or not, it's been a long day. Senate Bill 2611 relating to schools includes weekends and holidays. Is times where a reasonable or warning.

Reasonable warning or request to leave school premises is not required for a person to commit the offense of criminal trespass in the first degree. Specifies that the offense of criminal trespass in the first degree, a reasonable warning or request to leave school premises includes a written lifetime prohibition against the person entering the premises. Okay.

That's a very interesting Bill that we have. We have Attorney General's office. Good. We need some legal. Legal advice here.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Senator DeCorte. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department just provides comments on Senate Bill 2611. The Department appreciates the intent with the broad enforcement on school premises. Would just note to the Committee that criminal trespassing the first degree, that's under 708 813 authority, revised statutes.

It covers situations that are legally enforceable prohibitions already. So based on that, the Department would just recommend removing the language in this Bill. Pages two, line 19 through page four, line 14. Specifically, that's just to remove any additional obstacles that this Bill would actually create in enforcement and holding individuals accountable when they commit this offense.

I'll come here for questions.

Is that the amendment says that person enters or remain unlawfully in or upon the premises of any public school, school as defined in Section 32A101, or any private school, after reasonable warning and request to leave the school authorities or a police officer, provided that the warning or request to leave shall be unnecessary between 10pm and 5am and on weekends and school holidays.

Is that amendment you're talking about?

I apologize, Chair. It's in. It would be removing. As I look at it, it's everything after the, after adding in weekends and school holidays. Anything for the purpose of. Through the rest of the Bill. That's on. I apologize. I said page two, but it's actually page three and it's lines five starting out for the purposes of.

And that goes through page four, line 14. And I apologize for that.

So you want that we should take that out?

That's. That's correct.

Is that the gist of the Bill, though?

Well, this Bill is covering defense of. Okay, this criminal. This is covering criminal trespass in the first degree. So when we look at this offense, we're looking at that right now. Under that charge, there's just a reasonable warning or request when somebody is unlawfully on the property.

This added language here, what it does is creates it because the department's position is included and covered under a reasonable warning or request. All this does is outline what has to be written in this prohibition. However, we don't have to prove that when we're doing this charge.

All we have to do is prove that there is a reasonable warning or request. This additional language in here would require us in a situation, and these are case by case basis.

But if there's a prohibition and it's based on this type of scenario, in addition that it's a request or warning, I have to prove that the language in here is on that. So because it's already presumed to be covered under reasonable warning or request, I think although the intent is well intended, it's.

It just adds more elements that the, the state would have to prove to convict or to hold somebody accountable. Thank you.

Okay, so. So looking at the Bill, the only thing that this Bill adds Is line three right?

That's correct. On weekends and school holidays as those are not covered right now there is no request or request or needed when it's between 10pm and 5am I assume that it's the intention is the schools are closed but on weekends and school holidays that's not covered.

So the Department takes no position on that but then left it in there as it's a policy decision by the Legislature.

Any questions?

No. I just want to say for the record that I do support that amendment because right next door to our high school and across the street from our intermediate school, it's a homeless encampment that frequently we have trespassers that go on to the school. So I can see how something like that could drag on the process.

But I just wanted to mention that. Thank you Chair thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Sorry to interrupt the testimony but we have Department of Education Kitayashi.

Hello, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Senator, DeCorte. Shantae Jima, Assistant Superintendent testify on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department supports this measure to promote safety on campus. We support empowering administrators to issue lifetime bans for egregious offenders, establishing stricter penalties for criminal trespass and streamlining law enforcement's ability to address unauthorized entry during non school hours.

Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure and we stand by for questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Also Tui HST.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Sarah Milli Ontalaf on behalf of HSTA Nosa Tui, we support this. We know a lot of our Members too are often in the building perhaps doing special assignments or doing school trips on those weekend hours. And we also want to, like Senator Court said, keep our spaces safe.

You know, think about things you put around the campus like art installations or kid work that we want to make sure we can keep everybody safe. So we support this. Thank you. Thank you.

Estrella Marin in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure hearing? None. Members, any further questions?

Okay, thank you. We're going to go into recess.

Calling back to order Committee on Education for decision making. Members, we dealt with the first two items already. So we're on Senate Bill 2877. This is the one year pilot project for student authored book publication pilot.

The recommendation is to amend, amend the Bill and also to include language that says that this program shall be integrated into the current curriculum and be like a capstone in that. So with that. Members, any discussion hearing no discussion. Senator Kitani for the vote.

Chair votes, aye Senate Bill 2877 to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye, Vice Chair votes aye Senator Fukunaga. Excuse Senator Hashimoto. Excuse, Senator.

Thank you. For Senate Bill 2793 relating to individual sports, the recommendation is to defer indefinitely. Okay. Senate Bill 2880 this is clarifies that the charter public school teachers are eligible for incentives under teachers teacher National Board certification.

Recommendation is to pass as is any discussion hearing Non Chair Votes I Senate Bill 2880 to pass unamended Chair votes. Aye. Vice Chair Fukunaga. Excuse hashimoto Excuse Senator de Court I measures adopted.

Thank you. On Senate Bill 2754 relating to civic education recommend is to amend to an SD1. First of all, we're going to do technical non substantive amendments.

We're also going to amend to require or shall that the civic education be embedded into the integrated into the social studies course at each of the schools and that Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support Services does not exist. So replace that with the Office of Curriculum and Office and Instructional Design or Office of Student Support Services.

Which is it? Okay. So we will correct that. Let's see. Did I miss anything? Okay. And I'm going to defect the date because we're not sure how many trust funds and whether or not that is a appropriate vehicle. So with that Chair votes I on Senate Bill 2754 SD1.

And Hashimoto Excuse Senator De Court Aye. Measures adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 3279. This establishes the Board of Education internal audit office recommendation again to do an SD1 technical non substance amendments. Blank out the appropriation on page three.

And I'm going to insert language about external audits to be reviewed by the by this entity and that their recommendation to the BoE as to them reviewing that measure. Any discussion Members hearing none.

Chair votes I on Senate Bill 3279 SDY Chair votes I Vice Chair F I Excuse Hashimoto thank you.

On the last measure 2611 this relating to trespass trespassers at schools on weekends. The recommendation is to delete out or take into consideration and and or the amendments in the Attorney General's testimony and in the discussion and deleting all of those items from page three to page four. Okay. Any discussion? Members hearing none.

Chair votes I on Senate Bill 2611 SD1 pass with amendments.

Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair votes Aye. Excuse Hashimoto.

Members, we're done. Thank you so much for.