Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our Senate committees on labor and technology and to our committee on government operations. We welcome you. Today is 02/11/2026. We're in Conference Room 225.

This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. Just a few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical technical failures. This meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 02/13/2026 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, I will begin with our first bill on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2119.

This is relating to reimbursement of public officers and employees, requires the state or a county to reimburse an officer or employee for work related travel costs that the officer or employee loan to the state or county within thirty calendar days of submitting an approved statement of completed travel. First up on our list of registered testifiers, administrator Bonnie Kahakui.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chair, members of the committee. Bonnie Kahakui with the state procurement office. We'll stand on our written testimony, providing comments.

K. Thank you so much, administrator. We also have Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW.

Chairs, UPW stand up and bring testimony, in support.

In support. Thank you. Nui Sabas, HGEA, in support.

Hello, chairs, vice chairs, members. Nui Sabas for HGEA. We'll stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Oftentimes, when our on our

members take official and approved work related travel, they do put that cost on or they do cover that cost initially. And we do get notified, from our members, about a delay or pending reimbursement, something that we would consider, not timely. So we do appreciate, the intent of this measure. Okay?

Thank you, mister Sabas. We also have Stacy Aldrich, state librarian offering comments. Christian Fern, executive director for University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, in support. And Mike Gulichuk Sr, in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers.

Anyone else on Senate Bill 2119? K. If not, members questions? K. We'll move on to our next item on our agenda, which is Senate bill 3131.

This is relating to personnel. Update state position titles by changing private secretary to executive assistant and secretary to administrative assistant or applicable. That's a that should be easy one to read. First up is director of DHIRD, director Hashimoto. In support.

Thank you. And then we also have Stacy Aldridge, state librarian offering comments. That completes our list of registered testifiers on Senate bill 3131. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this? If not, members, questions?

Okay. Move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 3069.

This is relating to civil service exempt positions within the department of accounting and general services permanently exempts certain positions within the public works division, special project branch, and the comptrollers office within the department of accounting and general services from the state civil service law. First up is Director Tokioka from DBEDT.

Good afternoon, chair and members. DBEDT, standing on written testimony.

Standing on testimony in support. Thank you. Craig Nakamoto, executive director, HCDA.

Good afternoon, chair and members standing on written testimony.

Okay. Written testimony support. Thank you. Keith Regan, comptroller from DAGS.

Chair Keith Regan, DAGS. We stand on our written testimony support.

Okay. Thank you. We have Michael Yedal, stadium manager, Aloha Stadium. Is he here. Adam Down is in person.

Ryoko, is mister Yedal on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, chair.

K. Thank you. And then we also have Nui Sabas. ... K. In opposition.

Thank you. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate bill 3069. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? If not, members questions?

Okay. Go ahead, chair chair McKelvey.

DAGS, actually. I just noticed the opposition of various labor organizations to the measure because, however, though, I mean, with I guess the big thrust of this appears to be the Aloha Stadium project and the convention center. Do you think if this bill were to move forward to address the concerns of the labor organizations, that it perhaps could be limited to these, two areas, or what are your thoughts?

Thank you very much, chair. Keith Regan, comptroller, DAGS. What what we're asking for is a very narrow number of positions that we're asking to be exempt. We're not asking for all public works division positions to be exempt. These are very specialized positions within the department that are beyond sort of what we have, in the in the current traditional civil service roles that are available to us.

So because these projects continue to become more and more complex and we require people that have skills that are, you know, not normally found here within the civil service system. We need that flexibility, and this provides us that flexibility. So and it's limited. Right? It's not we're not asking for it to be broad.

We're asking for very specific positions.

And this would be for actual positions and not consultants. Right?

Correct. That's right.

Because that's another building moving that Kinda touches on this.

Yeah. Yeah. And to your point, yeah, NACED is one of them, Aloha Stadium, OCCC is another one. The Convention Center is another one. And these projects get more and more complex as we go forward.

I'm just thinking about when we do the renovation work here at the State Capitol, what kind of needs are we gonna have, you know, for that? Because there's a lot of moving parts in that as as an example in that type of a project.

Great. Thank you, Chair.

Chair

Thank you. Senator Moriwaki?

Since you're here, comptroller, can you clarify for us when you say exempt positions, how it's different from the civil service positions so that, in fact, these are positions that are specialized. But what what areas are they are they specialized in so that we don't have the expertise, on board?

Yeah. So in our budget request, we outlined, what the positions would be titled and what some of their responsibilities would be. Very specifically, they're think of them as the closest thing I can describe them to is project managers, but at a high level having experience with engineering, architectural experience, various different specialties that you're not gonna typically find in just an engineering position or just an architect position. You need something that's very broad and specialized.

And the type of of work that they would have done in order to be in order to qualify for these roles, it just doesn't exist within the current system.

And, also, there's also this concept of flexibility with with regards to pay, which is very important within those exempt positions. Currently, you know, the engineering class is very limited in terms of where we could go in terms of pay, especially if we're trying to attract a private sector person with these kind of skills to come and join the state. So it gives us that flexibility, and we need that in order to attract the right people.

And so this is gonna be an ongoing branch. So you are looking at this kind of expertise being available to the state Yep. On an ongoing basis.

Absolutely. We don't see this going away. I mean, this is as I mentioned, we've got I've just listed a number of projects beyond just Aloha Stadium, OCCC, and even the Convention Center as an example. We've got the rehabilitation of this facility here that's gonna involve possibly, the Kinauhale site across the street. And what do we do with that?

Right? And how do we enter into sort of that type of a redevelopment project, and who's gonna manage that from a state perspective? And so, as I mentioned, these these projects are becoming much more complex than our traditional delivery of projects that we've done over the last thirty, forty years.

Is there been some concern that consultants are used to manage projects? So, this would be something that you folks will be the tip of the spear on managing projects so that they they don't go, you know, into billions

I will just share. Part of the challenge that we have is because we're resource limited, you know, we've got an administrator of the public works division who is taking on a significant role in some of these projects, but, you know, quite frankly, that spreads that person very, very thin. And so the more that we can have these specialized positions within the department and and, again, it's not to get rid of any of the other civil service roles that we have.

We embrace the civil service system.

We think there's it's, you know, it's important for the state as we go forward, but this is sort of the nontraditional roles that we need to have that flexibility within that's gonna allow us to not rely 100% on an external consultant. Somebody needs to keep the consultants in check. In order for us to bring that specialty on board, to keep them in check and to reduce costs, we have to have that talent. And in order to get that, we need these positions.

And, again, it's extremely limited.

We're not asking for and we're not there is no intent to go beyond, you know, what we're asking for in terms of this exemption.

K. Thank you, chair.

K. Any further questions? Senator Fevella?

Yeah. So my thing is this. You see all of these projects, and these projects wasn't thought about overnight. So within our civil servant working, with Senator Dela Cruz, always talking about pathways and ways of moving up. Lot of these guys who get civil service job, we probably wanna move up, but did they have an opportunity to have a structure in a sense of, okay, we might need somebody in the stadium or the convention.

Are we trying to promote within? Or again, to me, I'm gonna tell you my personal thing is that we're not gonna have nobody local. We will not gonna come in for these jobs. That could be from here because of why? Because we're not training our own to do these jobs.

And then we get consultants consulting the state worker on these jobs when it comes to engineering and structuring. But, again, we're not investing in our people. So, again, I understand the concept. I understand the need of the special position. But, again, as a civil servant worker, you could be limited because now you guys could be replaced even though you're not getting rid of them, but you're gonna have somebody else come in.

One foreigner come in, and then they're gonna run everything. And then all these guys gonna be under this foreigner. They're gonna get a specialized position with a specialized pay. Yeah? Probably more than these guys.

So, again, are we gonna promote within? I understand we're no more talent, but these jobs never come overnight. All of these jobs, those coming out down the pipe. So how are we gonna go again in taking care of our own moving forward? And I know it's not just your, it's just that you're here.

So if you can That's a lot. If you get that answer the best way you can, but how can we invest in our own engineers, our own architects to take this position? Maybe you cannot get one guy. Maybe you can get two civil service that that is already getting paid by the state to specialize in the positions that maybe you might need in going forward.

I appreciate the question. Here's what I'm gonna share with you is that I believe we have a lot of local talent that currently work for private sector firms that are making good money, that have skills that we need at the state. We cannot attract them to come and work for us under the current system, especially in these highly technical specialized positions.

If we're going to attract them, I would much rather have somebody that is born and raised here or at least has deep roots here in Hawaii, taking these jobs than trying to attract somebody from the Mainland to come here who may be in a role for one or two or three years and then leaves.

I want somebody that's gonna be here for the long run, for the long haul, that understands how to deliver projects that are going to help our community and help us, you know, build for the future, but are invested in this community.

It's not I want people that it's not just for them, but it's for their kids and their kids' kids what they're doing for us. And that's where I see the opportunity if we can attract people that are here. I'll tell you something else. I guarantee you, get get people on the Mainland, born and raised here in Hawaii, are in these highly technical skilled jobs, would love to come back home.

They would love to come home, but they can't afford it because they're making too much money on the Mainland.

But if we can attract them to even think about coming back home, to bring those skills back to Hawaii, I think we should do everything possible that we can. So I just share with you my mindset as I go into this. That's how I'm approaching this. And as long as I'm comptroller and I have that ability to, hire into these roles, that that's the kind of people I'm looking for.

And I can tell you, if you look at my track record of the people that we're bringing into the team, you will see that that that's how we've been approaching it is we're trying to attract local talent to come and take these jobs.

Each, project, you guys gonna have a special position for each project that you guys gonna be hired so this guy gonna come in and Oversee all the projects?

The goal is to create the special project branch, right, to have these skilled technical people within that special project branch that can help us work on these highly technical and complex projects. Yeah.

And what would be the price? Sorry. I never look at that.

I think, for the budget request, I wanna say, and please don't quote me because I don't have it in front of me, but it was like 700 something thousand. Part of that was for the salaries, part of that was for operations. It could have been yeah. Again, I'm sorry. I don't have the I can't remember all the breakdown, but I know it was in that range.

Okay. Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, chair. Appreciate it.

The chair has some a few follow ups. So currently, it's funded in the supplemental budget request.

Is that correct? And then do you know how many positions?

It is

Three.

Three? Okay. On the special projects branch division.

Yes.

Has DAGS looked at doing pricing or reclassification and working with DHRD first?

I mean, we've done that on our engineering positions, and we've had success in that. And that has attracted people to come and work for us. But

But not specifically for this?

Not for this because these are these are highly technical specialized positions. In fact, the work that's being done by those folks are actually we're actually contracting for that work.

So that's another reason why we wanna bring that skill set into the state so that we can have that specialty.

Does DAGS or the administration have plans to convert this exempt positions to civil?

I mean, you'd have to have a whole class. I mean, I would defer to DHRD who's, you know. In the room. But I would just say this. So for our engineering positions, we have had a lot of support from DHRD to hire above the minimum or recruit above the minimum to attract people to come into these engineering jobs.

Maui is a good example, and I bring that up because I think it's really important. We had the hardest time attracting anybody to work in high level, like engineering five and six positions in Maui. And it wasn't until we got this tremendous support from DHRD and our team that said, hey. We can go beyond sort of just, you know, your traditional range. Right?

I mean, it's in the range. It's not beyond the range, but, you know, typically we start, we only go up to a certain step, but we have that flexibility to hire above the minimum to attract people that are highly skilled into these roles. But that that only goes so far, right, in terms of type of skill set that we're trying to attract to the state.

This is just more of a comment comptroller. I would hope DAGS would work with DHRD as they go through their price classification to see, I think, to some of the committee members' question to Senator Fevella's point. Right? You have people that are coming in at entry level. It's a highly skilled position.

Well, how do we allow them to climb the ladder in civil service and whatever that may be in creating sort of that that pipeline? So I think that's a more long winded conversation to have. And and and I know you're aware of that.

I am. And I will just share this that, you know, we have positions that we've downgraded to engineer three positions, which are unlicensed engineers. Right? Maybe straight out of college, they just got their degree. And we're working with them to build them up so that we can, as they progress and they get their license, we can convert that position to, you know, like an engineer five position as an example and be able to pay them more.

So there is that to your point, there is that path for them, that opportunity to grow.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Comptroller. Anyone else on 3069? Okay. If not, we'll move on to 3180, which is relating to state employment, repeals language that limits a temporary employment of a person in a single position for two terms of eighty nine days. First up, director Butai, DLIR.

After him.

K. Offering comments. Thank you. Administrator Kahakui from procurement office on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chairs, Member of the Committee. The state procurement office will stand on its written testimony with comments.

K. Thank you so much. Keith Hayashi, superintendent, DOE or representative. And after, this person, Director Hashimoto.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. Sean Bacon on behalf of the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and available for any questions. Thank you. K. Thank you so much.

Director Hashimoto?

Do you hear to stand on its written, testimony in support and we're available for any questions.

K. In support. Thank you. Stacey Aldridge, state librarian in opposition. Kamakana Kamilo, UPW.

UPW says written comments. Thank you.

K. Written comments, Anui Sabas? Written comments. Thank you. Ted Kefalas, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support, and Glenn Kagamita in support.

Anyone else on Senate Bill 3180? K. If not, Members, questions? K. If not, we'll move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 2137.

This is relating to public employment; authorizes state departments, divisions, and agencies to elect-- to assume hiring and recruitment functions from the Department of Human Resources Development for vacant civil service positions within the department, division, or agency under certain conditions. First up on Senate Bill 2137, Director Butay.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair Lamosao, and members of the committee. We stand on our testimony. What was it?

2137. I have you down in support.

Oh, in support. Sorry.

Okay. Just wanna make sure we got that clear. Okay. SB 2137, Director Hashimoto, DHRD. Aloha. Welcome.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Brenna Hashimoto here, Director of DHRD. We're opposed to this measure for a couple of reasons. First of all, Chapter 76-5 already allows DHRD the ability to delegate to departments certain personnel functions. And with regard to recruitment, we have many, many programs that allow for departments to request delegation.

In fact, we have about 155 current active delegations for different classes by almost every department and agency. What we're concerned about in this measure is delegating it down to the agency level where they typically do not have expertise or staffing to be able to do the work that DHRD does. And we also would like to note that some of the activities that are in the delegation are already part of the department's and agency's responsibilities, for example, composing position descriptions.

That's already their responsibility to do that work, and some of the other issues here we feel are are not appropriate to be delegated down that far. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Director. Stacey Aldrich offering comments, Christian Fern, Director for University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW.

We stand on our written testimony in support.

Written testimony in support. Thank you. Nui Sabas, HGEA.

HGEA's in support.

All right, thank you. HGEA in support. Anyone else that wishes to testify on Senate Bill 2137? Okay. If not, members, questions? Senator Fevella.

Go ahead.

No. No, I-- was your request for DHRD?

I thought you said something, so. Yeah, so the question is, I know you're saying that they can do certain things, yeah, but you can't understand why this bill is being heard?

Yes.

Because we have 89-day hires that's been working for five years. Was the program ever supposed to be crafted in that way? So what happened is they hired a guy, 89-day hire. After the 89-day hire, they let him go about two, three days and they rehire them back in 89-day hire for five years. I'm not gonna say the department. You probably know what department I'm scrutinizing. I don't have to mention it. But they did that for five years.

And that person came back, revolving, revolving. They're knowing the benefits because they're already retired from the state, from the same department, and that's the reason why I think this kind of bill is necessary, because even though you guys have the latitude of doing what you guys saying, you guys get scrutinized.

It's being abused, and it's not fair for other employees that wanna move up into these positions, civil servant or not--mostly civil servant--but they cannot move up because this person is there for five years on a 89-day hire. So that's the reason why I wanted to ask that question. Did you-- do you-- is it possible that these things have been happening that you guys don't know about?

So the-- I think we're talking about a different measure, if I'm not--

Oh. You said that you're-- we're talking about the 89-day hire, right? Or are we--

2137, the decentralization of DHRD. We passed the bill.

The recruitment one.

Okay. Sorry.

I can answer that question if you'd like.

Okay. Never mind then.

Okay.

Let's put that on our record, though. Let's put that on our record.

Senator Moriwaki.

Let's put it on the record, though.

It's on the record.

It's on the record.

It's kind of similar.

Okay. Sorry.

Go ahead, Senator Moriwaki.

We'll stop by later. We can talk.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

So I guess-- but going back to what Senator Fevella said, the reason for a bill like this is because people are having a hard time recruiting. So I'm just looking at, while you say you folks have the expertise, it does bottleneck in your department because you're small. So I think what we're trying to look at is, what is a measure that we could do to expedite the recruitment? Because departments know what they need--

So, so--

--and how can you address that without saying, well, we are the experts?

Okay. Right. Thank you for that question. It gives me an opportunity to share with you that-- I would agree with you wholeheartedly that if you had asked me this a year or two years ago, we were a bottleneck. We had a tremendous backlog in terms of screening and getting lists out quickly. But we--with your help and resources--we put a tremendous amount of effort and focus on speeding up the process.

We got seven positions a year or so ago, and now we are pretty much current in terms of screening. So we are no longer a backlog or a bottleneck in recruiting. We are able to screen and get out lists very quickly with the staff that we have now. I would also like to say we have things like Operation Hire Hawaii, so any department that wants to fast-track a recruitment and wants to do their own screening, they can.

They post it under the OHHI job recruitment, and we send them those applications every day, and they can do their own screening, they can proceed, and they can make an offer within 14 days.

So, why are we having these complaints from the departments? Because, you know, if you are doing that, is it not doing outreach? Is it not training? What is the problem then? Because we're trying to change the law here because we're hearing that the departments are having a hard time recruiting, and they point to DHRD.

Well, I mean, just the whole landscape right now, recruiting is difficult. It's difficult all across the state. We have 2.2% unemployment, so it's challenging for every employer, but I can tell you it's not for a lack of effort, and on DHRD's part, we've done more promotion in the last two years in terms of advertising and promoting state jobs and being out in the community. Our team does over 40 job fairs per year.

We put a lot of resources into that as well in organizing a statewide effort, so departments come and they promote their jobs. It's something that we're going to continue to tackle over many, many years. This-- our vacancy rate didn't grow overnight. It was a 10 or 12-year constant, you know, uptick in the vacancy rate, and so we're not gonna solve it overnight and we're not gonna solve it by delegating it either.

I think we've got the right resources in place. We're poised now to be current. I think that the difficulty we heard before was that it took too long for departments to get lists. We've addressed that issue, and I might say just recently.

So if you're hearing complaints, that would have been fair six or eight months ago. We got about 8,000 applications in response to Operation Hire Hawaii, which did create some backlog, but we're caught up and we're ready to move forward. I-- like I said, departments who want delegation, there are many avenues available to them now to take on that delegation. We are not-- and we've never denied a request from a department for delegation. If they want it, it's available to them.

So the bill can go forward with-- if a department requests delegation, you would give the delegation or something like that so that departments can see that there is a pathway for them to expedite based on their own needs?

So I believe there is statutory language already very similar to this that does allow for delegation. The difficulty that we have with this particular language is going down to the agency level. Most agencies are attached to a department for a reason for administrative support because those resources are at the departmental level. The HR staff is typically at the departmental level. Most agencies, attached agencies, do not have the same complement, the same size of HR staff to be able to take on this extra work.

So if we change the bill to say department and not go down to the level of agency, you feel that that's reasonable?

That would be a step in the right direction. I think the other issue is just things like position descriptions where that's already their responsibility. We'd like to see those things, you know, cleaned up.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Members, any further questions? Chair McKelvey.

Comment-question. If what you're saying is true, then how come all these agencies are here testifying in support of the bill? I mean, if everything's hunky-dory and everything's good and the complaints we're hearing-- I've heard them as recently as a couple of months ago of requirements being put in there that departments don't need, of descriptions and everything. If that was the case, I would assume that all these agencies would be here in opposition, but they're not. They're here in support of it. So there's a huge disconnect happening.

I'm sorry. I'm gonna be honest with you. I really question the role of DHRD. I question another agency that does HR for an agency that knows its own HR that knows what it needs and knows how to get them and can prioritize that. I think they can go in-house or reach outside for the expertise. So, I gotta be honest with you. I'm not a really big fan, and I think the litmus to me is the fact that these agencies are not testifying in opposition to this bill. They're supporting it. Anyway, thanks, Chair.

Thank you for that.

Okay. I do have a few follow-up--

Okay.

--of questions, Director. Where do I start? So currently now, in your line of questioning with Senator Moriwaki, agencies can hire. Is that correct?

Yes. They do hire. DHRD doesn't do hiring for agencies.

Okay. So they have that authority, but do they have to request from DHRD to be able to hire on their own?

No. No.

Okay. I know it's my understanding that there are HR managers for each agency or department.

Yes.

Does DHRD provide training to HR or new HR managers for each division as they are onboarding new employees?

Not formal training. So when we roll out new programs or there's specific-- some kind of change or just a need for a refresher, we do conduct training, but primarily, departmental human resources officers, which are in every state agency, or every state department, are responsible for training their own staff. Kind of the nuts and bolts.

Okay. But isn't DHRD supposed to provide, like, an overall training manual, or this is how you onboard, this is what you look for?

We have many policies which could spell out what many of our processes look like. So maybe not formal training, but there is a lot-- an awful lot of guidance provided in writing.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay, if not, that completes our last item. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2137? I think I called the testifiers. Chair, do you wanna recess or you wanna roll into DM?

Just a quick recess. I gotta go.

Okay. Short recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Chair.

Great afternoon. We're reconvening our joint agenda, between the late, between the two committees of labor and technology and government operations. The chairs have been conferred. We're now moving into decision making. First off, we'll start with Senate Bill 2119.

This is relating to reimbursement of public officers and employees. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna adopt the proposed amendments by the office of procurement in their testimony and change the effective date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamasao for the vote, Chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 2119, recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye, Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator Ihara is excused. Senator Moriwaki?

Aye.

Senator Fevella?

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Committee on government operations, same recommendation, noting the excuse of, Senator Gabbard in the presence of the other members, any WRs or noes? Seeing none, recommendation has been adopted.

K. Thank you, chair. Our next item is Senate Bill 3131 relating to personnel. Chair's recommendation here is to pass as is. Any further discussion?

If not, Vice Chair Lamasao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 3131. Recommendation of the chair is to pass unamended. Noting the excuse absence of Senator Ihara. Anyone present voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair, all members present vote aye.

Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Committee of government operations, same recommendation, thirty one thirty one unamended, no excuse absence of Senator Gabbard. Any WRs No. Seeing none, recommendation has been adopted for GBO.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Our next item is Senate Bill 3069. This is relating to civil service exempt positions within the Department of Accounting and General Services. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

One of the amendments is we're gonna provide an annual report to the legislature no later than twenty days to the beginning of the legislative session with projects that these employees are working on. We're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077, and shall be repealed on 12/31/2031. K. Any further discussion? K.

If not, Vice Chair Lamasao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 3069, recognition of the Chairs to pass with amendments. Let's see. Members that are present voting with reservation or voting no reservations, hearing none.

Chair. No vote for me.

No vote for Senator Fevella. Anyone else voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, all other members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Committee on government operations, same recommendation on thirty, sixty nine, Senate draft one, noting the excuse of Senator Gabbard. Are there any W, R's, or no's from the other members of the committee? Seeing none, it Harabedian adopted.

K. Thank you, chair. Our next item is Senate bill 3180. This is relating to state employment. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments on page two, beginning on lines 15 to 18, 15 to 19.

We're gonna restore partial language and yet amend the following language to add back the language with the approval of the governor or department or agency of the state may temporarily employ the same person in the same position. We're gonna add language to have required agencies to provide a report for any position filled with a temporary hire beyond two terms, and we're gonna defect the date and change it to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? If not, vice chair Lama sought for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 3180, recognition of the chairs to pass with amendments. Any members present voting with reservations or no? All members vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thanks. Committee and government operations, same recommendation thirty one eighty is Senate draft one, noting the excuse of Senator Gabbard. Any WRs or no's? Seeing none, recommendation has been adopted by GBO.

Thank you, chair. Our last item on our agenda, Senate Bill 2137. This is relating to public employment. Members, I'd still like to continue the discussion and still have a vehicle moving forward, understanding some of the concerns from DHERD. So chair would like to pass with amendments.

On page two, line 15, we're gonna add the year 2027. We're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077. In the committee report, we're gonna note DHIRD's concerns to apply to departments and not to agencies. With that, any further discussion? If not, vice chair Lamasau for the vote, chair votes aye.

Members voting on SB 2137, recreation of the chairs passed with amendments. Members present voting with reservations or no. Hearing none, all members vote I chair your creation is adopted.

K. Thank you. Committee on government operations, same recommendation for 2137. Senate draft one, noting the excuse of Senator Gabbard. Any other members voting WR or no?

Seeing none, GVO adopts the recommendation as well.

Okay. Thank you so much, chair McKelvey and your GVO committee. Thank you to those that have waited a couple days since this was canceled from one day. This concludes our agenda for agenda for

today. We're adjourned.

One.

Great afternoon. Will the committee on labor and technology please come to order? This is our 3PM agenda. Thank you to those waiting patiently. Today is 02/11/2026.

We are in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. A few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical failures. This meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 02/13/2026 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, a 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. Okay. First up is Senate Bill 2993.

This is relating to transportation, requires and appropriates funds for the Department of Human Resources Development to offers fully subsidized public transit passes for state employees. First up is Leah Laramie. Laramie?

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Leah Laramie with the state climate change commission. We stand our testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. K. Lola Irvin, administrator for the Department of Health.

The Department of Health

k. Thank you. In support, director Hashimoto, DHRD.

The DHRD stands on his written testimony provided comments.

K. Comments. Thank you. We have Abby Sites, director for Hawaii Appleseed for Law and Economic Justice, in support. Kamakana Kamiloa.

Chair, we stand on our testimony in support.

K. Thank you. In support, Sherry Pollock, testifying for three fifty Hawaii in support. Nui Sebas.

Let us test one in support. Thank you. Jason Esparo in support and Kiana Otsuka in support. And do you wanna come up or you stand on your written testimony? Stand on your written testimony in support.

Here, HJ stands.

Okay. Thank you. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate bill 2993. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? K.

If not, members, questions? I have a few questions for Dehert. Thank you, director Hashimoto. So my first question is I know DHRD has a pretax transportation benefit program.

Yes.

How come DHRD hasn't looked at that initially to expand that program?

So we do have a program that allows, for bus passes to be paid on a pretax basis. But what we haven't we don't have the funds to be able to pay for the bus passes through state funds.

Okay. And then would DHRD be willing to work with the respective counties, in particular city and county of Honolulu?

If required and and we had the funds and the resources, we anticipate that not only would we need the funds to pay for the bus passes, but we would also need funds to purchase the machines to issue the ID badges. Because I think what's envisioned is that it would be a combined, like, state ID badge with the bus pass together integrated, and we don't have that capability now. Each right now, each state agency issues their own ID badges individually. DHAR does not issue them.

So that would be not only a tremendous amount of work for DHRD to take on, we would need resources to to be able to manage that.

Not only the contracting, but the the research and and

So a matter of funding per se?

It's it's mostly a matter of funding and staffing.

Okay. Right.

And just to note too, we obviously only take care of the state departments that are under our jurisdiction, so that does not include DOE, HHSC.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any other questions for director Hashimoto? Senator Moriwaki?

So is HRD the the proper administering agency for something like this, or is is it I mean, if we're getting bus passes to the counties, how does that work?

That's a good question. That I do it's not foreseen. It's, you know, it's an extension of a program that we do have now, the transportation benefit program. There are elements that we we do currently, but obviously, we're we don't we're not involved in it to this to that level. There are other agencies which which handle other aspects.

For example, you know, the parking office, they deal with, with parking issues, transportation.

It doesn't DAGS.

Yep. So there, there are other options, but, yeah. That's a question for the legislature, I suppose. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I have a question for miss Otsuka from AMPO. Thank you for being here and for your testimony. I know DOH referenced your study from 2024, I believe.

Could you provide us with perhaps how much that would cost for, like, a I think it was, like, 54%. Right? That said they would ride transit if it was fully subsidized. Yeah. What would be, like, the 100% cost and what would be, like, the 50% cost?

I know it's real technical. I was

gonna say, I can grab my laptop to tell you.

Sure. Sure. Sure. Yes. Cool.

And members, the reason why I asked that is because they've done the study And that would help us to formulate what that cost would look like.

So I wanted to clarify, based on our discussions with,

So if you can identify yourself

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm Kiana Otsuka. I'm a senior transportation planner with the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization.

I'm also the project manager for the study, that the chair is referring to. So I wanted wanted to clarify, based on discussions with the City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, that the cost to the state would be, based on use by employees and not just we're buying everybody a bus pass or bus sorry. Bus rail pass on Oahu or throughout the state. So it is it's by use. So I understand maybe it's useful for you folks to understand what a 100% participation.

So if every state employee used the bus or rail to work. So at a 100% participation and a monthly negotiated rate that's much lower than a standard city transit pass. And then I've also incorporated the cost of the new state badges. So at a 100% cost, one year would be 16 almost $17,000,000 for all 46,000 plus state employees. That's a twenty twenty three number I have.

Do you wanna other costs for the older people? Yeah. 50% would be $8,300,000 for a one year. So transit costs plus, state badge costs. K.

Thank you. Yep. Members, any questions for OMPO? You know, I'm Senator Fobello?

Yep. I don't know if you can answer the question. So I know all departments have their own state state badge. On the bus, is it is it a this is it a scan? When you're going to the bus, do you scan their bus pass?

Yeah. So I'll I'll tell you why Well, what was told to me their preference from the City and County of Honolulu to do the state badge rather than just giving everybody a regular holo card. Right. So the City and County of Honolulu mentioned to us that they would prefer it to be on people's state badges so that only the employee is allowed to use it.

So what the City and County of Honolulu does, because they already have this incentive in place, is city employees use their city badge to then tap on to the bus and or rail, and then no at no cost to the employee, just the cost to the city.

So that's the preference by the city and county of Honolulu, but it could also be implemented via sort of the way we do it now. It's just people's, polo cards get uploaded with their transit pass pretax.

So that was, I guess, the question for DHRD, how hard it would be. Sorry.

Oh oh, first of all, any other questions? I'm sorry.

I'm going to yeah.

Yes. Yes. Before we call up, Deahir, it is Senator Milwaukee.

So just just to follow on Yeah. Because, DHRD director said that they have to purchase equipment to put this on the car. So did you go as far as that in terms of working with, say, the city that has the badge, the input on the badge?

I said, when I talked to Oulu High-tech, it's, city's consultant that's sort of helping implement this program. They seem to think that it didn't require special, machinery, but I don't think they're here online. I don't see anybody here in person to answer that question. But I did not to answer your question more directly, I did not get cost estimates for special machinery. Yeah.

Okay. Any any further questions for miss Otsuka? If not, thank you for your work on the study.

Thank you.

There's a request for director Hashimoto.

Senator, you Kinda asked the question a little bit. So how hard it would it be to put the same kind of on on the state batches, each department, when they make their badge, how hard it would it be to put the scanning mechanism or or whatever it is to tap to to the transportation? Because you're already making a badge. What what what software you think you might need?

I I'm not an expert in that on that part. I just know from my own department, we recently recoded our doors, so now we have swipe badges. So we need to take into account, and I think other agencies as well use swipe badge to make sure that whatever badge is issued is compatible with both systems. Right? So I don't I don't think it's as easy as just printing them.

It it I believe it's a little bit more cumbersome and technical, and it may vary by different agencies. Right? Because it needs to needs to be compatible with their other systems.

I think I think if you heard from some of the testimony, if you go to work with us sounds like the city and county of Honolulu already has a program that's launched, that's embedded in their badges. Maybe that's something that the herd could work with with with the county on that. Sure. Yeah. Any further questions?

K. If not, we'll move. We've we've called for all testimony, right, on this? Yep. Okay.

So we'll move on to Senate bill 2778. This is relating to ethics. This requires a governor, lieutenant governor, member of the legislature, department heads, and their deputies, and any spouse or dependent child of a governor, lieutenant governor, member of the legislature, or department head, and their deputies to place certain financial interests in a blind trust. First up on our list is director Harris. Thank you for waiting.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. The Hawaii State Ethics Commission will stand on its testimony offering comments.

Standing on testimony offering comments. Thank you. That's the only registered testifier registered to speak. We also have Judith Mills Wong for League of Women Voters in support, and the rest of the following individuals in support, Ruta Jordans, M. Leilani DeMello, Pamela Elders, and Glenn Kagamita. Anyone else on Senate Bill 2778?

If not, members, questions? If not, we'll move on. Actually, I do have a question for you, Director Harris.

Sorry. Is there something that the ethics commission can do now looking at existing laws on whether it's financial disclosures, disclosure of interests? I know that the ethics commission hasn't fully looked into this, given your testimony, but I don't know if you have a response for that.

Chair, this is Robert Harris on behalf of Hawaii State Ethics Commission. There are certain circumstances, for example, somebody who might be doing active trading and having to report that on a frequent basis would be very difficult or hard, where a blind trust would make eminent sense or has unique assets that their department might be dealing with where, again, a blind trust makes sense. But by itself, a blind trust isn't necessarily a panacea. For example, somebody owns, like, I'll use a not so hypothetical.

Someone owns a large hotel chain, for example, and puts on a blind trust, one can presume that the trustee is not necessarily going to sell or liquidate, so you still know that that asset's there.

And, you know, the impacts that may impact you beneficially. So in of itself, it's a tool, but I'm not sure it's the ends to a means by itself.

Thank you.

But but again, we we did offer some other suggestions that might be things to look at to address issues if if that's something the legislature wants to talk about further.

Okay. Members, any other questions with director Harris? Okay. If not, thank you so much. K.

Move on to our next item, which is Senate bill 2672. This is relating to retirements. Establishes a five year pilot program allowing retirements to be rehired for exempt service for one year terms under certain circumstances. And first up is Gary Lum.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Not present. I know he was there earlier. K. We'll go on to deputy attorney general Diana Sumarna.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

She's here in person.

Oh. Aloha. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, deputy attorney general Diana Sumarna. We submitted our comments primarily to align this bill so that way it is consistent with the existing statutes on retirements. And, you know, we do note that there are actually quite a number of bills on retirements, rehiring this year. So thank you. I'm available for your questions.

Thank you, deputy attorney general. Albert Young, director, ERS.

Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair, madam, vice chair, members. So the Board of Trustees has not taken an official position on this bill. However, the administration is offering you some comments. Specifically, a request to consider amendments on page 19, line 17 through 20.

These are outlined in the department's testimony. The amendments would make it consistent with preexisting existing statutes that are already in place on a similar types of measures. And then, also, there are a number of things that are already in the bill specified that it would be good to keep an eye on as this bill progresses through the legislative process. Thank you.

Thank you. And we also have, Mayor Richard T. Bisson Junior, County Of Maui, Mayor, in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers on Senate Bill 2672. Anyone else?

If not, members, questions? K. If not, we'll move on. Senate bill 2014, this is relating to public employment. Requires the director of human resources development to abolish vacant positions within state departments and agencies under its jurisdiction that have been vacant for more than five years.

First up is director Butay.

Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. We stand on our testimony. Opposition.

K. In opposition. Thank you. Director Hashimoto?

We will stand on its written testimony in support.

K. Do Get written comments. Thank you. Ted Kefalas in support. Nui Sabas.

Chair we stand on his comments.

Stands on his comments. Thank you. And then we also have Glenn Kagamita and Megan Blazic in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate bill 2014. Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure?

If not, members, questions? Sure. Yep. Senator Moriwaki?

The Department of Labor, director

Director Butay?

Director, in your testimony, you say you're opposed because because, primarily, you've got your federal positions, and those are required. And so you need those to be available for you. If the bill were to be amended to exclude federal positions, would you be in support of this bill?

Yeah. We exclude the the federal positions. And and basically from, you know, based on our experience, I mean, we know that, you know, emergencies and disasters don't come when, you know, on a schedule. I mean, we don't know when they're gonna come. And, you know, most of the time, it, you know, it happens outside of a legislative session.

And, you know, because of that reality, we need to have those positions before, not after.

So these federal positions, if we were to exclude the reasonable for you to accept the bill as is written?

I mean, we gotta go case by case on on on the positions because we have a lot of specialized positions. I mean, we we get positions like TDI health care specialists. I mean, we're I mean and, you know, or workers' comp specialists or boiler inspectors or elevator inspectors. I mean, those are hard to fill positions. Because I think what we gotta think about is that

four years or five years if it's I mean, if you're Would you be looking at other options than to just continue to keep add the vacancies, you know, on the books?

Well, we we try to fill them as as best as we can, but, you know, we're competing with, you know, the with the private sector where they, you know, they they can offer a good salary.

But if the position is not filled for four or five years, I mean, wouldn't you look for other options as in terms of how you how you fill those positions if they really are necessary?

I mean, like I said, it would be dependent on the position. We we would I mean, we were okay to exclude the federal positions, but, you know, certain positions, I mean, we need to make sure we have enough because, I mean, like, for elevator inspectors, we we, we inspect about 8,000 elevators in the state. And then for the boilers, there's about 10,000 boilers. So we wanna If

we had language in there that you could justify not abolishing the position that and excluding federal positions, would that be reasonably acceptable for you, for your department?

That would be acceptable.

Thank you, chair.

Yes. Okay. Any other questions for Director Butai? If not, thank you, director.

Okay. I did call for testimony. We completed testimony. If no further questions, we'll move on to our next item, which is Senate Bill 2967. This is relating to artificial intelligence. Establishes consumer protection requirements for the use of artificial intelligence system and consumer interactions and consequential decisions including disclosures, documentation, any right to correction appeal and human review.

First up on this measure is Raji Tolentino, DCCA.

Good afternoon, chair. OCP will stand on its testimony offering comments.

Okay. Thank you. Offering comments. We have Chris Delaney or Mehoku Ito offering comments on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Not present on Zoom, okay. Thank you. And that's all that have registered to testify. The rest of the folks listed that we have is Eric Rosen Calder from Receivables Management Association International in opposition.

The following individuals in opposition, Victor Brock of Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii, Darbi Gottlieb of AdvaMed, Michael Tanoue of Hawaii Insurance Council, Marvin S.C. Dang for Hawaii Financial Services Association, and also in opposition is Stefanie Sakamoto from the Hawaii Credit Union League. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2967. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? If not, members, questions? Senator Moriwaki.

I guess it would be DCCA, since you're here. So I'm reading some of the testimony in opposition. It seems that, it may be a problem for us to have to regulate the AI since they are doing some of this already. And I don't know if you have experience in terms of what they actually do in terms of of using using the technology to make their decisions. They're saying they're they're connecting the information then making the decision.

Do you have any information on that and how it's operating now? And are we should we be asking or or regulating before we know? Or what do you know about the situation now?

Raji Tolentino with the Office of Consumer Protection. I didn't get to see the testimony submitted from the other testifiers, but I know there was a court case where they found in 2024, in Massachusetts federal court. It's part of my testimony. And they found out there was, this algorithm that was used by this rental company was unfairly treating certain, ethnic groups in their decision making.

So in that case, there was a settlement of $2,257,500. So it is a problem that we're we should address.

So do you think that the bill itself addresses it? Because some of, if you didn't see the testimony, some of them are saying that they already do it. This federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act already has applicable requirements. So I'm just wondering, are we duplicating and confusing, or are we helping to regulate?

I don't, I don't know the answer to that question.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Members, any other questions? Okay. If not, we're gonna take a short recess. Short recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Reconvening our 3PM labor and technology agenda. Members, what we're gonna do and for the general audience and the public, we're gonna go into our 03:01 agenda. So we've taken all testimony on our 3PM agenda, and so we'll do decision making at some point either during our 03:01 agenda or after our three zero one agenda.

So with that, we'll move to our three zero one agenda, and thank you for those that have been waiting patiently as this, previous hearing was canceled on Monday due to the storm, so we appreciate your patience. First up is Senate Bill 3144.

This is relating to the Hawaii occupational safety and health law. Repeals the hoisting machine operators advisory board and its rules requiring a separate state crane operator certificate and allows additional time for the director of labor and industrial relations to complete an investigation of a discharge or discrimination complaint pertaining to employees exercising rights under the occupational safety and health law without former extension. First up on our list, director Butai.

Aloha, chair and members of the committee. Jade Butai for DLAR. We stand on our testimony in strong support, and thank you for hearing this administration bill. We've had productive meetings with the operating engineers and agreed that hoisting machine operator operators advisory board is a duplicative requirement. The bill also, updates, whistleblower investigation timelines to align with, federal standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. K.

Thank you. That was the only person list listed to testify in 3144. Anyone else? If not, members questions? Senator Moriwaki?

Just for curiosity, director. So so what what is this, what is is that the crane operators now is the new terminology for the hoisting?

Yeah. Those those are crane operators.

So they are crane operators. So the advisory board, you're creating a new advisory board for crane operators, or you're just not having an advisory board?

We're abolishing it because Totally. It was created before there was a federal standard. So now that, you know, there's a there's a highest standards. We don't need it anymore. It's a duplicate.

So

you don't need an advisory board No.

At all?

Okay. Thank you.

I mean, follow-up to that. Has the advisory board how do they feel about this?

They agreed as well that the you you know, it's, you know, in terms of the administration and also the, you know, the it removes all that duplicate of administrative or the paperwork, the fees, and and sometimes it delays the getting the, you know, the certificate.

Okay. So it would just eliminate the duplication of it and they would still get a national certification.

Okay. Any other questions members? If not, thank you Director Butai. And we'll move on to our next item, Senate Bill 3,096. This is relating to employees retirement systems, employee contributions for normal costs and accrued liability.

Correct.

This increases employer contributions for normal cost and accrued liability for a specific group of employees to ensure the unfunded accrued liability of the employee's retirement system of the state of Hawaii does not exceed the maximum funding period. Director Calvert Young, ERS. Thank you for waiting.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, members. So on behalf of the Board of Trustees for the Employee Retirement System, we support this measure. This measure proposes to increase the employer contribution on police and fire members within the employee retirement system to what is currently in the statute at 41% of salaries to 44%. So a 3% increase.

The emphasis is on this is only applied to the employer portion, not the employee portion of the contribution. The reason for the need for this increase, is related to the most recent actuarial study for funding progress on the retirement system, has progressed on schedule on par in the in general for the all employees, down to twenty one years. However, police and fire members has actually seen an increase in the funding status up to twenty four years. So, in order to comply with the statute

time's up. But if you wanna finish.

But in order to comply with the statute, this measure would be necessary. Thank you.

K. Thank you. Josiah Nishida, county of Maui, offering comments. And managing director Mike Formby for the city and county of Honolulu in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 3096.

Anyone else that wishes to testify on this? If not, members questions?

Oh, I do. Yeah. Just just You can finish up your statement. But but, I so when you're saying that we need to increase is and it's based on salary, how does that work? So when the salary increases, then you you have to have the contribution increase accordingly?

So the reason for the increase in this particular group of employees is because the rate of increase first of all, the rate of scheduled compensation increases for police and fire over the last two years has been, at amount significantly higher than in the actuarial assumptions for what that what the schedule rate of increase would be. In addition, the experience study for employees in this area that have actually retired, have we've seen higher than anticipated end of career compensation increases.

Some of that could be increased could could be due to spiking, but not all not all. But the combination of all of those has singled out these particular group of employees that they are moving in the opposite direction compared to the very large and much more broader general employees in the system.

And so because the contributions into the retirement system is based on a percentage of payroll, if all of these other factors continue to trend in the same direction higher than the assumptions, and yet the amount that has contributed is still fixed to a percentage of payroll, these employees will not see catch up to, achieve the full funding status.

And that, in turn, will eventually, if time progresses, will also bring down the funding progress for the entire, retirement system.

So and so the contributions employer contributions would be counties as well as state in in the contribution?

So so this would be only for employees that are in the police and fire, retirement system. The majority of those employees exist at the, county level. There are a few, at the state level, but it would the state portion would be comparable to, one of the smaller counties, like the county of Kauai. And the largest county, the city, would experience you know, has the greatest amount of experience and exposure in this regards.

You wouldn't have an estimate of what the employer contribution is, for the state.

I I I'm sorry. I don't have that information with me.

K. Thank you. Okay.

And just one follow-up question for you, director Young. I don't don't know if you have an opportunity to read the county of Maui and the city and county of Honolulu's testimony with delaying implementation To fiscal year twenty eight, which would begin 07/01/2027. Is ERS have a position on that?

We have we have been in discussions with with all of the counties, including Maui and the city. And then understanding the operational mechanical logistics around implementing this increase, ERS is supportive of their recommendation or request to delay implementation for one year.

K. Yep. Thank you. K. We'll move on to our next item.

You could stay right there, director Young, because I think you're up next. This is, Senate Bill 3097. This is relating to the exemption from civil service of executive personnel of the employee's retirement system, allows the board of trustees of the employee's retirement system through its executive director to appoint specific executive personnel positions of the Employees Retirement System of the State of Hawaii and exempts these positions from the state civil service requirements. Director Young.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the Board of Trustees for the employee retirement system, the trustees request your support for this measure. These this is for three specific positions. They are all currently in existence. One of the positions, the information security officer, is a position that was created via the legislature last year.

It has not yet been filled. The other two positions, the deputy executive director and the chief compliance officer, they currently exist, and they are currently filled with with persons. This bill is requested so that the Board of Trustees can more closely treat these particular positions as executive positions at the will of the Board of Trustees, the executive director, and also to create funding or or salary compensation at levels that are more representative of people in these position these types of positions.

K. Thank you. That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else on Senate Bill 3097? K.

If not, I have a question for you, director Young. Sorry. Getting your steps in. Yep. Yep. That's Current ERS is strictly funded by how?

Trust fund. So 100% trust fund, meaning everything in the endowment, performance out of the endowment. However, the funding is subject to legislative appropriated ceiling of the trust fund, and also the positions in the ERS are also subject to budget, authorization.

And all the positions in ERS now are currently exempt?

With with the exception by statute of the executive director, the chief investment officer, and, the investment managers. Got it.

Okay. Understood. Thank you. Members, any other questions? If not, thank you.

Move on to our next item, which is Senate bill 2968. This is relating to employment, requires hotel keepers to supply and provide annual training on the proper use and limitations of a panic button to certain workers no later than 07/01/2027. First up is DLIR. Director Butay?

Thank you, chair, and committee members. Jade Butai for DLIR. We stand on our testimony, appreciating the intent. Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you. We also have Llazmin Chaney, executive director for the Hawaii status on the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Woman. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your first name I have. Is it LL?

Yeah. It's Spanish like a Y, like tortilla.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. No problem. Yeah. Sween Cheney, executive director for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I stand on my written testimony in support of this measure. Given the changing federal landscape, anything that we can do to support survivors within the state would be appreciated. Thank you. K.

Thank you, director Cheney. We also have Stephanie Donoho, administrative director for Kohala Coast Resort Association, offering comments. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate bill 2968. Anyone else that wishes to testify? If not, members questions?

to ask questions too, but I get questions.

No. I wanted

Do you have questions, Senator?

I guess I can ask her. You're welcome.

Oh, for director Cheney?

Yeah. Director Cheney. Thank you. Probably not directed to you, but also do it for the record. So right now, there's there's technology that is coming out.

Right? So I just gonna use this for this building because I know it's here. So they have this device that they give certain senators, probably the governor. I don't know if who has it. But there's like, you know the one when you fall on, I can't get up Yeah.

Press the button? It's similar to that. So they gave me one. So if I press that button anywhere anywhere in The United States, enforcement will come to that. But reason why I bring that up is because I don't think it would be hard for a hotel to integrate or any hospitality service to integrate something similar to that.

I don't know how much the program would cost for here, but just an idea of suggestions, I guess, to suggest expediting because it is dangerous of our hospitality workers nowadays.

They're very vulnerable.

Yeah. They're very vulnerable. I used to be security for high emergency mallers, so I know.

Very security. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, chair. Thank you.

Yeah.

Let me Yep.

Okay. No one else. We'll move on to our last item on our agenda, which is Senate Bill 2036. This is relating to consumer protection. Prohibit surveillance pricing or differential pricing based on information collected with electronic surveillance technology.

Deemed surveillance pricing an unfair and deceptive practice, provides certain exemptions. First up is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. There's no name for this person, but in support, who is representing Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I should say. We also have Dominic Jancaterino. Did I? I'm sorry if I mispronounced that.

You could please come forward.

Sorry. I'm missing my front tooth. It's an old injury. I'm getting a new one. I'm Dominic Jancaterino.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair of the meeting.

Good afternoon.

I'm an enforcement attorney for the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection. OCP submitted written testimony, and OCP stands on it. I'm available for any questions. I would like to add that I noticed in my testimony that there were some footnotes that weren't included that should have been the studies in references to which I'm referring.

If you could speak closer to the mic, please.

Sure. The studies that I referred to in the written testimony that were not cited too, my mistake, were from the Vanderbilt University and University of California, Berkeley, studied by Stephanie Union. Available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next up is Dave Erdman, Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition. Robert Singleton.

Yep. Present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. Thank you. We also have Robert Boykin for TechNet in opposition. Drew Ambrogi, Chamber of Progress in opposition on Zoom.

Yes. Thank you, chair. Drew Ambrogi, Chamber of Progress, Center Left Tech Industry Association in opposition. We appreciate the sponsor's concerns, but believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding here about what these pricing technologies do and how this bill would impact consumers in Hawaii. Despite speculation and hypotheticals, there is no concrete or conclusive evidence that so called surveillance pricing is being used in a way that harms consumers.

Instead, consumers encounter these practices in the form of discounts, personalized coupons. You buy kids' cereal once a week, so when a new brand hits the shelves, you receive a coupon. Reengagement offers, new customer promotions. Whether intended or not, the bill's broad prohibition means these and other pro consumer practices would be banned. At a time when cost of living is the number one issue facing Americans' families, this bill asks Hawaii to ban hypothetical harms while putting real consumer savings at risk.

We thank you for your consideration and are open to any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Drew. Stefanie Sakamoto. Written comments. Thank you.

Mackenzie Chase for Expedia Group on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Mackenzie Chase here on behalf of Expedia Group. We stand on our written comments, and I'm very happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mackenzie. And then I also have Erwin Jeong in support. Oh, did you wanna come and testify, or you're standing in your written testimony?

I'll stand on our testimony.

Okay. Standing in your written testimony. Okay. Thank you. In support.

The other folks that I have listed is Michael Holder, Noel Lindenman in support, Karen Takamine in support, and Darian Perov in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for Senate Bill 2036. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? Okay. If not, Members, questions?

If not, we're gonna do we're gonna do a short recess. Short recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

Thank you everyone for your patience. We're reconvening our agendas from today. First up, we're now in decision making.

We're gonna start first with our 3PM labor and technology agenda beginning with Senate bill 2993. This is relating to transportation. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077. In the committee report, we're gonna add language to reflect, the Department of Health's testimony regarding the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, also known as OMPO's 2024 focus group study.

And from the 2024, which reported that 54% of state employees reported that they would ride public transit if passes were fully subsidized. Also in the committee report, based on OMPO's data and study costs with the annual transit pass total, which would include state badge costs, would be approximately 16,700,000 per year to cover all state employees. And for 50% coverage, it would be approximately 8,300,000. With that being said, any further discussion? K.

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

Okay. Members were voting on SB 2993. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice chair also votes aye.

Senator Ihara is excused. Senator Moriwaki? Aye. Senator Fevella? Aye.

Sure. Your recommendation adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. Our next item is Senate bill 2778. This is relating to ethics. Chair would still like to keep the conversation going. So what we will do, this goes onto the committee, I believe, on judiciary next, where they can have a further discussion.

So recommendation is to pass with amendments, technical amendments, and change effective date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, vice chair Lomas off for the vote, chair votes aye.

Members voting on 20, SB 2778. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absence of Senator Ihara. Anyone present voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair, all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. Our next item is Senate Bill 2672. This is relating to retirements. Chairs are gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're gonna adopt the AG's proposed amendments in their testimony.

We're also gonna adopt ERS's proposed amendments in their testimony. We're also going to amend page 13, lines 12 to 13 with subsection 40 to include language that states the following, the state fire marshal, deputy state fire marshals, and assistant state fire marshals and the office of the state fire marshal. And then we're also gonna defect the date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? If not, vice chair Lamasau for the vote.

Chair votes aye.

Members, we're voting on SB 2672 recommendation of the chair's pass with amendments, noting the excuse, absence of Senator Ihara for the remainder of the agenda. Anyone present voting with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair. All members present vote aye. Your invitation is adopted.

K. Thank you so much, vice chair. Next item is Senate bill 2014. This is relating to public employment. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're gonna adopt DHRD proposal amendments in their testimony, and and also hearing concerns from d l DLIR and with some conversations we had today, we're gonna exclude positions that are federally funded in the abolishment of, positions that are for vacant for more than five years. So it wouldn't include positions that are federally funded. And then we're going to change the effective date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? If not, vice chair Lamasat for the vote, chair votes aye.

Members, we're voting on SB 2014, recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair, all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Chair. And our last item is Senate Bill 2967, relating to artificial intelligence. Hearing from the testimony and written comments, recommendation is to defer. So that concludes our 3:00 agenda. Ryoko, can I roll into the 3:01 or do I need to gavel out?

Chair, you can roll in.

Oh, okay. Oh, k. I'm gonna roll into the 03:01 agenda. We are in decision making. Starting with thirty one forty four.

Okay. First up on our three zero one agenda is Senate Bill 3144. This is relating to the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass amendments. We're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077.

Any further discussion? Okay. If not, vice chair Lamasil for the vote, chair votes aye.

Members were voting on SB 3144. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, chair, all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. Our next item is Senate Bill 3096. This is relating to the employee's retirement systems, employer contributions for normal costs and accrued liability. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to change the implementation date on page four, line three to four, to commencing with fiscal year 2027 to 2028, which would be starting in 01/01/2027.

And we're gonna change the effective date to 01/01/2077. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamasoff with a vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members voting on SB 3096 recommendation of the chairs to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or a no? Hearing none, chair all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair Lamosao. Next item is Senate Bill 3097. This is relating to the exemption from civil service of executive personnel of the employee's retirement system. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're gonna change the effective date to January 1st, 2077. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay, members. We're voting on SB 3097. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, Chair, all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you so much, vice chair. Next item is Senate Bill 2968. This is relating to employment. Chair's gonna recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're just gonna defect the date to 01/01/2027. Any further discussion? If If not, vice chair Lamasal for the vote, chair votes aye.

Members who are voting on SB 2968, recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, all members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you so much. And our last item is Senate Bill 2036. This is relating to consumer protection. Hearing that there was a lot of testimony in opposition and comments, chair recommendation is to defer. That completes everything.

Thank you members for your patience and being with us. This concludes all of our agendas today. The committee on labor and technology is adjourned.