Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Great afternoon, everyone. Happy Aloha Friday. We are convening our deferred agenda first on the Committee on Labor and Technology. We've already accepted public testimony when we first heard this measure back on February 2nd, so that's when we took public testimony. We'll now move into decision-making, but members, before we move into decision-making, I'd like to call up a representative from the Attorney General's Office and a representative from the Judiciary. If you both can come up, please? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair. Dave Day, Special Assistant to the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair Lamosao, Senator Moriwaki. Brandy Kimura, Administrative Director of the Courts.

Okay. Thank you so much for being here. So, in going back to previous testimony when we took up this measure, there were concerns that the Attorney General raised. I know this is part of the Judiciary package. So I know we gave it a little more time to work out some differences, so could you tell the committee and public if some of those concerns that were raised from the Attorney General were addressed?

Sure. Do you wanna go or do you want me to go? I can sort of start. So, we have a wonderful relationship here at the Attorney General's Office with the Judiciary. We worked hard in the interim on proposing a solution that would address the Attorney General's concerns while also keeping intact sort of the intents of the Judiciary.

And what we've proposed here, one of the aspects of this is-- so it's a two-year pilot project. One of the issues that emerged was that there were many different people who wanted to be covered by this bill. I'm happy to report that as far as we're concerned, this provides universal coverage for all state officers and employees of all three branches of government, from the Judiciary, the Legislature, to the Executive branch, as well as the counties.

With respect to the state, the proposal here is because-- so basically, one of the primary issues that we had at the Department of the Attorney General is that our role under the Constitution, under the statute of the state, is to represent the state, and these temporary restraining orders are essentially personal capacity issues even if the harassment occurs on the job, and there's no mechanism for the Attorney General to represent them.

So what we're proposing is for the Judiciary. The Judiciary would have-- they have their own staff attorneys. They would be able to either use their own funds or use their staff attorneys to represent Judiciary employees and officials and judges in the name of the administrative director of courts.

With respect to all other entities, and so that would be the Legislature, Executive branch, and including the Judiciary--the Judiciary would still have this option--what we're proposing is a fund that would then allow for the Department of the Attorney General to facilitate individual departments or the Legislature or whoever the public employer is under the bill to be able to obtain private counsel to represent them in that capacity, and it would be funded out of this fund with the sort of the mechanism developed by the Department of the Attorney General as far as how those funds are distributed and et cetera. Ultimately, we think that this is actually a pretty good solution, and we're happy with the proposal.

Okay. And Judiciary, do you have any further comments on that proposal?

Just briefly. First, I thank Dave and Attorney General Lopez and First Deputy Matt Dvonch for the collaboration, agree with the great working relationship, and I think we've come together with something solid for the committee's consideration here.

Just a brief background is that, you know, the genesis of the bill as drafted-- and I think, as the attorney generals and us are proposing to the committee at this point, it does maintain that genesis, which is to protect folks from significant threats and harassment that is not only directly related to, but due to and because of the person's official action as a government employee, and that is troubling, and that is a challenge for those individuals, for the entity, for our democracy, and that's the genesis of the measure. And so, appreciate the collaboration, and I thank the committee for the consideration.

Okay. Members, with that, any further follow-up questions? Senator Moriwaki.

Just to clarify, because I know in the Judiciary's testimony, you said it was also to protect retired judges. So I'm just wondering, if we say a public employee, does that cover everybody in this special fund? So people who have made a decision previously and are now retired, are they covered, or can they be covered?

Do you want me to address that?

So the way that the bill is drafted right now is that we included all of those-- we basically kept those references to retired judges or per diem judges, for example, if they suffer harassment because of their work, so they would be covered under this bill.

Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

So any decision arising out of their work, even if they're no longer employed?

Yeah, so I think that, like-- look, like, let's say that a judge made a decision 10 years ago but that--you know, that person then--I'm just making up a hypothetical here--gets out of jail and then starts harassing the judge because of that decision. Then there would be an analysis that would be done about whether it's covered under the bill, but, yes, the way that it was drafted is that that would be covered.

The other question I have is, if it's a special fund that everybody can dip into, is there some criteria on who gets to dip in and how much you can dip in and like that?

So that's one of the reasons I think why it's a pilot project. So that's an excellent question. And so right now, we do have a blanked out appropriation for this because we're trying to gauge, like, what would be appropriate because we're not sure.

It would be subject to the availability of funds, and part of the kind of like, I guess, you would call the screening process of this is that because there's gonna be both the department that's going to be advocating for the petition--or let's say department or Judiciary, for example, or the Legislature advocating for this petition--if a private attorney then gets retained for this purpose, that attorney will have his own--his or her own--ethical obligations to determine whether or not, you know, the petition is warranted, if it's gonna be something that's going to--you know, in their professional judgment--gonna do that.

You know, it's not gonna be an unlimited fund, so I don't know. I mean, it may be that we're gonna have too much money and there's not gonna be as much demand. If there's gonna be-- if there's not enough money, then it would be on a first-come-first-serve kind of basis, and then that would be something that would be instructive for the future.

You know, we haven't done this, but is there any guesstimate of, like, how many claims, or is it just really we haven't done it, so we haven't done it?

Right. So I think that we're still in the developmental phase on that, but we are going to be trying to come up with a data and evidence-based approach to propose for an appropriation.

I think, if I can add one brief point on that last one is that the way drafted for the committee's consideration is that it would not allow filing of a TRO against another employee, even if they're a public employee in the same branch of government because we do not want this to become a substitute for workplace disputes. There is an established nuance process for that, and those kinds of disputes should continue in that process.

So this is where it's a different branch of government, the petitioner and the respondent. The-- and a brief comment to your other question earlier as to, you know, how many in the Judiciary, because we have a, you know, Judicial Security and Emergency Management Office that has been following these things for years, and we, you know, often sharing with folks at the Legislature the number of threats, the seriousness of threats, of things like that, in our estimate, over the years, the number of incidents that would rise to this level are really a handful a year or less, at least within our branch. That does not-- even though the volume may be low, the serious nature of it can be quite high. We do have very, very serious threats, but just to give a sense of the volume.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions?

Just-- just--

Yes, Senator Fevella?

Follow-up on the-- I mean, I understand the restraining order that I need for certain things, but you just said it the same thing, right? Restraining orders are used for leverage for one another, try to go after one another. I'll give you an example. If your neighbor don't like you and put a restraining on you, which they can, right--that's their privilege--but then it gets out-- it's gonna get out of hand because you're tying up the court system and the Judiciary system for something that is very petty that you can work out about one another, and that's basically what you just said about the employees, yes?

Yes. Thank you, Senator. So the two limitations are-- the two limitations in the measure that come to mind are, one, that it would be, again, only permitted if it's somebody who is not in the same branch of government. So it wouldn't be, again, a substitute for the established workplace disputes. And in terms of the neighbor situation that you're talking about, the bill is also such that the harassing threat must be related to, essentially, the decision or the work that they're doing as a public employer, so not, you know, I have an issue with you as my neighbor.

Yeah.

So those are two limitations, not perfect, but those are two limitations in the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, gentlemen, thank you so much, and I really appreciate your hard work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, members. Chair is ready to make a recommendation, and again, I wanna thank the Attorney General's Office and the Judiciary for working out language to present to the committee. So members, what I'd like to do in working with these particular two offices is pass-- recommendation is to pass SB 2567 with amendments.

Thank you.

We're gonna insert language to establish a two-year pilot project, which shall accomplish the following: universal coverage of all officers and employees of all three branches of government and all counties to allow employers to file petitions for TROs, the ability of public employers to file petitions on behalf of their employees.

For public employees of the state, which are officers or employees of all three branches of government, excluding federal or county employees, the pilot project provides an appropriation and mandate for the Department of Attorney General to be used for the public employer to retain private counsel on behalf of the employee. Provided that to avoid conflicts, no petition under the pilot project can be maintained when the petitioner and respondent are employed in the same branch of government.

Staff attorneys for the Judiciary are authorized to represent the Judiciary on behalf of Judiciary employees, and the Judiciary may also retain counsel using its own funds. Liability protection for state employers and officials for purposes of the pilot project, and then we're gonna change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. And for clarity purposes, in case we need it, I'm also gonna recommend that there be any other technical amendments. Is that good? Okay. Okay. With that recommendation, members, any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members, we're voting on SB 2567. 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 so much, Vice Chair. We will gavel out of our 3:00 p.m. deferred agenda. We're adjourned.

Happy aloha Friday and great afternoon, everyone. This is our 3PM committee on labor and technology agenda.

Today is 02/13/2026, and we are in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii state Senate's YouTube channel. Just a few housekeeping announcement. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 02/18/2026 at 3PM. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony.

If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content including the hearing notice, copies of the measures, and testimony can be found on the legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimony. First up on our agenda is Senate Bill 2448. This is relating to disclosure of intimate images, and it enacts the uniform civil remedies, for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images act.

First up is Jane Stornicki in support on Zoom. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Lamosao, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jane Stornicki. I'm legislative counsel for the Uniform Stornicki.

I'm legislative counsel for the Uniform Law Commission. I'll try to get through this quickly. So this bill, SB2448, allows a plaintiff to bring a civil claim for the unlawful dissemination of intimate images. If they can demonstrate threat to disclose a private intimate image of an unidentifiable individual without their consent. There's also a requisite awareness requirement.

I'd like to address very quickly, some comments that we received about the definition of private. So first, the criminal counterpart to this bill, which is SB2135, does require that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy when the image was created and disseminated. Second, the the determination of whether the image is private is going to be a very fact specific analysis by the court, but there's nothing in this bill that indicates that the more an image is disseminated, the less private it becomes.

The court is going to have to make that

Thank you. Your time is up. But if you could stay around in case there are other questions. I will. Thank you for your testimony.

Yasmine Chaney, executive director? Did I get that right this time?

I'm so proud of you.

Okay. Good. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Director Cheney. Welcome.

Hi. Yasmine Cheney, Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on my written testimony in support of this option of civil recourse for survivors. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Cheney. Lynn Costales Matsuoka, executive director for the Sex Abuse Treatment Center, in opposition.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lynn Costales. I am the executive director of the Sex Abuse Treatment Center. I am in opposition of this bill, and I just wanna be very clear about my opposition. It has a lot to do with the fact that this is a uniform civil remedies, and discussions on the language have taken place with the commit the uniform commission committee prior to ledge session starting.

But, ultimately, it seems like the bill is it's it's a uniform law. So there's not a whole lot of wiggle room to expand protections for survivors. And so while I may not have any experience with that, I do have experience as a former prosecutor. I've spent countless hours with victims of sexual abuse. I was a civil litigator.

I spent over ten years doing that. So I know what it's like on a discovery level as well. I will say that this bill does open up some concern.

Thank you.

Your time's up, director.

So thank you so much. I appreciate

that. Thank you. Elizabeth Kent for a commission to promote uniform laws on Zoom.

Aloha. I'm Elizabeth Kent, one of Hawaii's Uniform Law Commissioners. You have my testimony. What I'd like to speak briefly to is about victim blaming and discovery. I, I wanna be very clear.

Victim blaming is icky, and it's shameful and not something that that I just don't know how to say it other than it's it's not good. And discovery can be a brutal process for litigants. At the same time, a plaintiff needs to prove the plaintiff's case, and so there is discovery that needs to take place. And that's part of the the civil process. There's a concern, I think, about this being introduced in a trial.

Most cases don't go to trial and are resolved either through settlement or through a different type of resolution in the court. So I think that it's my time is up. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Dennis Dunn offering comments on Zoom. Aloha, welcome.

There we go. Aloha, Senator Elefante and Members of the Committee. In general, I support this measure, but I do have the same concerns as Len Costales. I think the inclusion of the, meant reference to the private, does create a problem. And you will note from my written testimony that term does not, appear in the current statute, which covered violation of privacy.

There's no need to prove that if the communication was private. I do think this opens the door, but these cases may not go to trial, but you're certainly gonna have a lot of situations in discovery where there's depositions where the victim will be led down this path and will be required to open up everything in terms of their, you know, social media and their telephones, etcetera. So that being said, I support measure, but I think you need to remove the the reference to privacy. Thank you.

K. Thank you so much. And then our last registered testifier is Chris Caulfield for Imua Alliance in support. Anyone else on Senate Bill2448? K.

If not, Members, questions? K. I have a question for Jane Sternicki, if you're still available on Zoom.

Hello.

Thank you. So you heard some of the testimony about the term on private, and I know you were finishing that in some of your last statements before your time went up. So could you, address some of the concerns that were raised in testimony from some of the testifiers regarding that issue?

Thanks so much. I, I appreciate the opportunity to circle back to this. So the corresponding criminal statute that's currently that actually was just voted out of this committee last week does have that there's a there needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's in section one(three). So this does dovetail very nicely with that existing criminal statute that Hawaii has already determined is is important and should ideally move forward.

The second part about that fact specific analysis. So what this act is really looking to prevent is, is the kind of classic case of revenge porn, where someone sends an intimate image to a, to a domestic partner or someone that they're intimate with, and that person sends it on or posts it online or sends it to people that that they were not intending it to be sent to. I think that's going to be the vast majority of cases here.

And right now, under Hawaii's law, there is no clear civil recourse for those circumstances. That fact specific analysis is really what the kind of the prototypical case here.

But there is there's it's always going to be fact specific. So if someone sends their image to I think Lynn used the hypothetical last time that someone sends an intimate image to five people and four of them agree that it will be private. But the fifth one says, you know, I'm, I'm gonna disseminate it to other people. Aye, I think that under the plain text of this act, that individual whose image was disseminated would still have a good case here.

They they would have to demonstrate to the court that they asked that the image would be private.

But I don't think that that would be a very high bar. The second thing I wanna say is that if we remove private from this statute, I'm concerned that people who create intimate content online, so people with OnlyFans accounts or similar accounts like that, where they are distributing intimate or sexual images, that anyone who who disseminates those images could potentially be liable under this act.

So there needs to be some sort of bar, some sort of expectation of privacy, or we'll be casting far too wide of a net. And I, I don't really think frivolous litigation is often the case here. Right?

The vast majority of the time, these are victims who truly have been harmed. But if we're opening up this this door, we could be allowing frivolous litigation to come in as well.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any questions for. I, I do. Just Senator Moriwaki?

Just to follow on to that. So is there in in a way of tightening up the definition of private, that I see in this, this bill so that it would be more specific as to what is private and not so broad as to have the concerns that are raised by others.

I will say we are very much open to additional conversations with the sex abuse treatment center. We we think that the definition of private is is both specific and broad enough as it stands, but we're hoping to meet with them next week and see if there are additional paths. I don't wanna give the impression that just because this is a uniform act, there is no room to make Hawaii specific modifications. We're always sensitive to that. We want to be sensitive to the victims here.

It's really not our intent for this to become, an opportunity for for victim blaming or for the courts to be really, like, inappropriately going through someone's private life.

So so I do have a question for, who is that now? Who are,

for not Do you still have a question for her? Senator? Yeah. Do still have a question?

Oh, no. Not not. But the privacy, but with the Kapiolani sex abuse.

Okay. Does anyone have any questions more for No. Alright. Jane? Okay.

If not, thank you. Oh, request for Lynn. Senator Moriwaki?

Thank you. So you heard the the this the concern about private and whether the definition could be, more, clarified so or or much more focused so that privacy would be something that it it addresses what the concerns are of having something disclosed that you did not want disclosed.

Yeah. If you can talk into the mic, please. Yes.

Yeah. I, I do think I mean, I don't know what that would look like, to be honest, and how you tighten up that word private, so that so that other things are not opened up. It's sort of like the rape shield laws. Right? So in a sex assault case, you cannot come in and talk about all the other partners that that victim may have had.

So kind of similar to this, if I disclose if I share this photo, shouldn't be able to get into all the details of when I shared it before. Right? I could have been 20 at the time and shared it with a bunch of girlfriends and maybe a couple boyfriends, but now twenty years have passed. I'm a mom.

I'm in a relationship that's not going very well, and maybe that's what happens, is that my my my ex discloses the photo, and it it gives rise to this lawsuit.

But should that ex boyfriend husband of mine be able to bring up, oh my god, you shared it 20 ago with all these other people, so it's not private. So this is where I get a little concerned, and this is where I get concerned about some of that, you know, victim blaming and and victim shaming and all of those things that are attached to it.

So it is very difficult, but I, I, I do think it provides a good framework for further conversation about how to make this how to make this right for our community and the survivors that we all serve versus it being a uniform thing that's really trying to address victim behaviors and victim just victims in general, which typically the uniform law commission does not get involved in, but they are this time. And I'm not saying that that's a bad thing.

I'm just saying that we have an opportunity to create something that can expand the protections for victims in this area.

And and that's what we're looking for, ultimately. I hope that answers your question. Sort of. Yeah.

Okay.

So I, I, I don't have the answer ultimately on how to make it more tight.

Okay. Thank you, chief.

So I'd have to look at it a little bit.

Any further questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much.

Thank you.

I just have one more follow-up if you're still on the line. Jane. Hi. Thank you. So I know in the proposal, the bill doesn't in include language, that would also includes include deceased individuals.

If the committee were to look at deceased individuals in inserting language, would you folks be open to that?

So the hypothetical here would be the the decedent's estate would bring a claim against someone who who disseminated the decedent's images.

Right.

I think we would be open to that change. Yeah. I'll I'll definitely have to discuss it with my colleagues, but I, I think it's certainly in line with the intent of this act.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Kate, Members, any other questions? Kate, if not, we'll move on to our next and thank you for being with us, Jane, and everyone else on that measure.

We'll move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 3046. This is relating to income tax credit. First up on our list is Jade Butai, director, DLIR.

Happy aloha Friday. Happy Valentine's Day. Happy, year of the fire horse, chair Elefante, vice chair Lamozau, and committee members, Amjid Butai, director of the Department of Labor Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in support of the intent and defer to DOTAX on the implementation of the credit. Just want to note that at a time when our unemployment is very low at, I think it's at 2.2%, you know, many employers still have a hard time filling their skilled jobs.

And I think a tax credit could incentivize them to, invest in training and expand opportunities. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, director. Lane Kavi Opulau Ojo. Is that correct? Or did I mispronounce it? I'm I'm sorry if I what is the correct pronunciation?

I'm sorry for messing it up.

Aloha Chair Elephante, Vice Chair LaMusau, and committee members. My name is Lane Kaivi Opula'o'ho, from the I'm a Deputy Attorney General, for the department. We provided comments and I'll just highlight for the committee, really to insulate the state from any potential privileges and immunities clause to The United States constitution.

The recommendation as far as the resident inclusion for the qualified apprentice and qualified intern definition either eliminate taking that part out of resident or alternatively a more substantial justification be provided for the residency requirement in section one of the bill. So I will be available for questions, but, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this bill.

Okay. Thank you so much. We also have Christine Beole, University of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Christine Boli. I'm the University of Hawaii system director of workforce development. We stand on our written testimony, and I am available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Apologize for mispronouncing your name too. Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation offering comments on Zoom.

Aloha. It's Colleen Teramai on behalf of president Tom Yamachika who's in another hearing. The Tax Foundation stands on its written testimony. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Thank you, Colleen. Sherry Menjivar, president, Chamber of Commerce in support.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Thank you for hearing this bill. The chamber will stand on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Lauren Zirbel, president of the Hawaii Food Industry Association in support on Zoom. No, present chair. K. Thank you.

Pamela Tompapp, Maui Chamber of Commerce in support, and Joy Boruya in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate bill 3046. Anyone else? If not, members questions? If not, we'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate bill 2231.

This is relating to workforce development, amends the state in internship and workforce development program for the public sector by expanding the program to the legislative and judicial branches, limiting the internships to full time placements of ten to eleven months, establishing eligibility criteria, application requirements, and selection preferences, and requiring the Department of Labor Industrial Relations to collaborate and with coordinating agencies to promote to promote the program and recruit eligible applicants. First up is Christine Boulle, University of Hawaii. Did I get that right this time?

Close. Boli. Boli. I will see you again. So

Yes. Okay. I'll make sure. Third time is always the charm. Right?

Good afternoon. Christine Boli, system director of workforce development. We stand on our written testimony, and thank you for considering this bill.

Thank you so much. Director Butay, DLIR.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Jake Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony offering comments. You know, we remain committed to working with the legislature in strengthening the Helei Moa, and, you know, thank you for your support, leadership, and commitment to the program. Thank you.

Thank you, director. And then we also have Eric Abe for Hawaii Primary Care Association in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for SB2231. Anyone else that wishes to testify? If not, Members, questions?

K. We'll move on to our next item, Senate Bill 2526. This is relating to employment of retirements. Authorizes the rehiring of retirements for positions that are unique and critical to operations. Limits the duration of each retirement employment to four years.

First up, we have Director Young, ERS. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Members. So the board of trustees has not offered a specific position on this bill. So administration is taking, this opportunity to serve to provide comments acknowledging the strengths that are in this bill already, that you should keep in mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process.

Thank you. K. Thank you. Jenny Nakamoto, deputy attorney general. Aloha.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jenny Nakamoto, deputy attorney general. We did submit comments on this bill, mainly three main things. We wanted to recommend defining the term unique and critical to operations and add in language about Chapter 76 and to give it a perspective, date of 06/30/2026, and add in Section three.

Thank you. Thank you. On Zoom, Mayor Bissen, County Of Maui. Aloha, Mayor.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. While I will stand on my strong support testimony that was submitted, I also did want to thank the ERS and the attorney general for their comments in helping us to shape this bill and, and as well as the mayors of the other counties whose departments also or Mayor Kaukami's case himself, Mayor Blangiardi's office for also offering their strong support.

I think you all understand the challenges we face, with employment and, our workforce, and so it's really it's driving this. So I just wanted to say thank you for setting this for a hearing model.

Thank you. And if you can just hang on for a second, Mayor, while we have you and to honor your time. Members, do you have any questions for Mayor Bissen while he's here? I do have the Chair has one question for you, Mayor. I don't know if you heard and read the attorney general's comments on defining the terms unique unique and critical to operations.

Yes.

Does do you does the is is this Maui County's proposal in the county of mayors?

Yes. We, the, the previous language was hard to fill, and that's what the previous terms that were used. And that hard to fill was just as vague, if, if you depending on who you ask. What we were looking for here, though, is for someone who already worked in those positions, that already have the training and the you know, that was offered to them by the county during their time in office, that they could continue on with.

A lot of folks are discouraged because they'd have to give up their retirement benefit.

And so that was the one of the big pieces of of getting people to come back to work for us. But we think it's, in particular, in our case, it's with the emergency management area. But it could be engineers. It could be top leaders, obviously, high functioning positions that you you lose all of that institutional knowledge when they use. So I think we can make a strong case on defining that, Senator.

But, again, the language be prior to that was, was equally, difficult to to try to define.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. That's that's helpful. Members, any further follow-up questions for Mayor Bissen? If not, thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. We also have Nola Miyazaki, director for the City and County of Honolulu Department of Human Resources in support. Mayor Derek Kawakami, County of County of Kauai in support. And then Paulette Phillips on Zoom. No present, Chair.

K. Thank you so much, Ricky. Paulette Phillips was in support. That completes our list of red shirt testifiers on Senate bill 2526. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure?

If not, Members, questions?

I guess I do have one, but I think Mayor Bissen went off.

But, I do have request for Senator? Yeah.

For Mayor Bissen?

Mayor Bissen, are you still

online? There? Sorry. I just thought

Oh, he is. I hear him. I just

didn't know how to get off this thing. I don't know how

to Oh, good. Then you're still there then. I was

trying to look for the lead button, but I don't know where it is. Sorry.

So no. So just a quick question. I see Nola Miyazaki, the HR director for the city, said that the unique and. and critical positions that require high degree of specialized knowledge and experience. I wonder if that kind of language would sit well with you if we don't have the hard to fill, but something where, you know, you really have needs for specialized and you don't you can't find the person. Would that be a way of maybe limiting more than just unique and, you know

Absolutely. Thank you for raising that, Senator. You know, the specific example that drove this in from Maui was, the August 2023 wildfires. At that time, we had nine members in our emergency management agency. We now have 25.

And at that time, if you look at when you when you ask for applicants to come into those positions, oftentimes, you will not get that that firefighter, that battalion chief level who served twenty five or thirty years in the fire department. You won't you won't get them to come back and apply to have to have those, departments.

And the reason that's so critical is oftentimes you will get somebody who who may fit the, the paper, qualifications, but the actual life experience will be difficult to find in someone with such a critical position. And that was the example, and that was our actual situation on Maui. And, you know, we did try to find folks who could come in, and some of the folks who we thought were most qualified, were not interested in in coming back into the county.

But if you think about people who answer emergency people, emergency calls, who do evacuations, do all that stuff, it's gonna be the people who did that work for a career. And that's exactly who you want. That's exactly who you want to head your emergency management agency. Someone who is willing to come back for four years, but willing to come back, train those young folks up.

Because if not, the applicants you're gonna get I mean, I can tell you firsthand who that would be, but and that was what drove this for us, Molly.

And I know speaking to the other mayors, that can also be used in other positions as well. High level engineers, critical decision makers, leaders. So I think that language would fit, yes, to answer your question.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I have one more question of the Attorney General. Okay.

Any questions before we allow Mr. Mayor to go?

You have to press the button.

I'm just gonna shut off my iPad. I'm not in my office right now. I'm actually on vacation, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

We made our thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, folks, so so much.

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mister Mayor.

Senator Moriwaki, request for this

Oh, it's it's gonna be Deputy Attorney General Nakamoto.

Oh, oh, another oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Twins.

Yeah.

So you heard the conversation about specialized. Would that be enough to to kind of tighten up this bill? You will need a definition for unique and, whatever, unique positions.

I, I don't have the authority to comment on that right now. If you would like, I can go back to my office and, and Yeah. Because we're

trying to look for a definition that you folks are comfortable with, but, but you you heard the, the real need for it. So, yeah, we're trying to look for a way that we can actually have something specific that the AG will say. Yeah. At least it's understandable.

Understood. Yes. If, if, if you allow me, I'll get back to you with that.

Yeah. And as a follow-up to that, deputy attorney general, the mayor mentioned about terminology difficult to fill, then unique and critical to operations. So would you would you think that would be sort of the same conflict in defining those those terms?

I think his statement was hard to fill.

Yeah. I think it's difficult to fill already exists somewhere within either this statute or other related statutes. Again, I, I don't have the authority to make that comment, but, I think hard to fill in and of itself, I'd have to look into that to see if it's defined in other statutes. It's I don't think it's hard to fill as defined in 88

dash two.

Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? K. If not, thank you so much. Anyone else on Senate bill 2526? K.

If not, Members will do a short recess before we go into decision making. A short recess subject to the call of the Chair. Reconvening our 3PM committee on labor and technology agenda. We are now coming back into decision making. We'll start first off with Senate Bill 2448.

This is relating to the disclosure of intimate images. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna adopt an amendment from the sex abuse treatment center to add language to amend Section six a to include language requiring the court to prohibit further decimation of the image to include its destruction, deletion, and slash or return of the image and order identification of all persons and or entities to whom disclosure was made by the defendant.

We're gonna insert language to clarify that a depicted individual includes deceased individuals. And in that case, or if a depicted individual passes away, the rights of the deceased depicted individual will vest in the estate of the deceased depicted individual.

We're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077. With that, any further discussion? If not, vice chair LaMazal for the vote, chair votes aye.

Okay. Members were voting on SB 2448 recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye, vice chair also votes aye. Senator Ihara? Aye.

Terry Mori Waki? Aye. Senator Fevella? Aye. Okay.

Perpetition is adopted, chair.

Thank you, vice chair. Our next item is Senate bill 3046. This is relating to a income tax credit. Our chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna top adopt the attorney general's proposed amendment or testimony.

We're also gonna, make technical amendments. We're gonna blank the appropriation of the cap of 5,000,000, change the effective date to 01/01/2077. And in the committee report, the suggested amount of cap that we will add is to add a 1,000,000 tax credit cap limit as a recommendation. K. Any further discussion, members?

If not, vice chair Lomasaw for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Great. Members are voting on SB 3046. Regulation of the chairs pass with amendments. Noting all members present, anyone voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair all members vote aye.

Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair Lamosao. Our next item is Senate Bill 2231. This is relating to workforce development. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna adopt the University of Hawaii's proposed amendments in their testimony.

On page 1, line 13, delete the words: full-time. On page 2, delete lines 11 to 18. Also, any technical amendments and change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. And members, the reason why we're deleting full-time is so that it also includes part-time so that it just-- it not limits it and it's not specified on someone's GPA so that we open the pool as this measure goes forward, so to be a little more inclusive. So with that, any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay, members. We're voting on SB 2231. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendment-- sorry. Noting all members present, anyone voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair, all members vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And our last item for aloha Friday is Senate Bill 2526. This is relating to employment of retirements. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna adopt the AG's proposed amendments in their testimony.

And then we're also gonna take language from the Department of Human Resources for

the city and county of Honolulu where we're gonna define what unique and critical positions that require a high degree of specialized knowledge and experience. And we're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077. And then in the committee report per attorney general's testimony, we are going to need to clarify definition of unique and critical to operations. So we'll continue the conversation on that. And with that being said, members any further discussion on the recommendation?

Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamasat for the vote, chair votes aye.

Alright. Members voting on SB 2526, recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments. Knowing all members present, anyone wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair all members vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

K. That concludes our business for today. Members, have a great weekend, and we are adjourned.