House Standing Committee on Labor

Good morning, everyone. I'm calling the House Committee on Labor to Order. It is Thursday, 02/12/2026, 09:30am. We're in Conference Room 309. First on the agenda, we have HB 1892 HD1 relating to Board of Education.

First to testify on this measure, we have OC2E, presenter for HSTA in support.

Hello, HJ and thanks to you. My name is Sarah Melantalak, and on behalf of OC2E and HSTA. This bill I'm a democracy nerd. My job here this session is to be the teacher practitioner who comes to talk to you about what it's like in our in your state's classrooms. This bill, what I think would do great, would be making sure that we have teacher voice on the board of education so that people are hearing directly from those of us in the classroom. I will say this is especially the case because since COVID, the whole game of education has changed.

So if you have a retired teacher, if you had somebody who taught a long time ago, if they don't understand the realities that teachers are facing, so I would love to have a voice on the Board of Education to make sure we're hearing from active practicing teachers, so please support.

Thank you. Next, we have UPW with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair. Good morning. To testify on behalf of UPW, we we stand on our written testimony, providing comment. And I just I did wanna point out that, we represent, members of the DOE in bargaining unit one, and we just believe that, as you said, this, measurement for it, that you would include, members of the DOE who represent other bargaining units as well.

Okay. Thank you. Next we have Randy Pereira, executive doctor for HGA, in opposition.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, Nui Sebastien, for HGA. I'll send out our testimony in opposition to this measure. Senator.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony with comments from the Hawaii State Board of Education, Office of Collective bargaining with comments, and support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. Members, any questions?

Okay, I do have a question for HSTA.

This is just a more of a technical question, when discussing with our drafting agency that just had some wanted to clarify what the, what goods what, is in good standing, right? This is written into a bill that allow a non voting public school teacher representative who's in good standing. So what does that exactly mean?

Yes, chair.

So from my understanding, good standing is the teacher rating and credentials updated.

Good standing and also a member of HSTA.

And also a member of HSTA. So, yes, those would both have to be active for that to work.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Those are the questions. Okay.

Moving on, we'll go to HB 1202 HD one relating to teacher's compensation. First to testify on this measure, we have Deputy Attorney General Anne, Horiuchi from the AG's office with comments.

Good morning. Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, Members. Anne Horiuchi from the department. As we noted in our testimony, as written the bill, appears to conflict with Chapter 89. So in our testimony, we have provided a suggested revision to the bill that we believe will address that conflict.

Thank you to be available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Keith Hayashi, superintendent for Boise Department of Education. Comments? Not here. Any other persons here to testify on this measure?

I see none members. We do have written testimony support from six individuals. Seeing that DOE is not here. I don't know. Is HSTA able to answer questions on this measure?

I know you guys aren't on the testifier list, but

They can try.

Next best thing I see.

Yes. We do our homework.

Okay. Appreciate it. So, this measure recognizes prior teaching experience, for teachers who are coming back into the DOE, and so they get equal equal salary ratings for those teachers who have similar or same, work experience. There are some concerns, that were raised that are related to collective bargaining. Is this something that HST collectively bargains already?

Ready?

This is with the negotiations.

So it goes through our negotiation team too as well, to have that conversation. There's also, on our HST website, you'll see that there were teachers, in a labor relations concern about not being compensated for their previous years of service, So that's part of, what this bill kind of addresses as well.

Okay. So is this bill do you find it necessary to renegotiate this, part of the contract or that's something already able to be done?

I'd have to get that answer back. I'd have to get that answer back with the administration team, but I will totally follow-up and get back to you.

Well, thank you for answering the questions. Thank you. Alright. Any other questions, members? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1893 HD one relating to education.

First to testify on this measure, we have Keith Hayashi, superintendent from Hawaii DOE support. I'm here. Okay. Moving on, we have Mitsuhiga, licensing specialist for the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board in support.

Hi. Thank you for having our testimony. We support HB, oh sorry, HB 1893 HD1, and this is because we know our national board certified teachers, they contribute a lot to our schools, and those in the charter schools, there's always questions. So this will just clarify that they are in fact getting the bonus, which sometimes we get questioned about at the board speaking on behalf of the board. But we just we just want the clarification.

Okay. That's all. Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Osa Tui, president for HSTA in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm actually answering this bill. This is really important because board certified teachers are the best among us, so you think about you want board certified positions, you want teachers who've been who've gone through these qualifications, they're at the highest level of our profession, Therefore, we need to compensate that. So this bill goes ahead and raises that that bonus to the $10,000 which makes salaries competitive for these high achieving teachers. Also, we just wanna protect our charter school teachers.

We were hearing in the field that, charter schools will often say because of budgetary constraints there might be issues with funding this, and so we want to make sure that our best and brightest also want to stay at schools where they're most comfortable in the community, teaching at this higher level, and we want to encourage more teachers to pursue this this credential. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have I'm sorry. That is all we have to do. Any other persons who could testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony in opposition from office of elected bargaining and two individuals in support. Members, any questions on this measure?

Okay. I do have for HSTA. Sorry to keep calling you back.

No. You're fine.

This is a question concerning the Office of Collective Bargaining's written testimony in opposition relating to collective bargaining once again. Their position is that this falls within a negotiation for wage and hours and others that already falls in seats.

We just wanna respond. This is already in statute, and so we're just, amending a current statute that's already in law. So, we're not sure why they're saying it should be in collective bargaining when it's already something that's, currently exists.

Okay. I appreciate that clarification. Yeah. Everybody's there any other questions? Okay.

Thank you. We'll be moving on to HB 1890. This is relating to education. First to testify on this measure, we have Deputy Attorney General, Amanda Donlen, from the AG's office with comments or sorry. Would Jeffrey pick it?

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, member of the committee. I'm Jeff Kent, Deputy Attorney General. Our testimony offers comments. Basically, wages under a Chapter 89 are reserved to collective bargaining. We have some language to help amend, but essentially, this is something that has to be part of the collective bargaining process.

I'm available for questions if you have any.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Hayash, superintendent for DOE. Comments? Here.

Moving on, also to a president, HSTA in support.

Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. Teachers do our homework, so I have in front of me the contract with the highlighted portion if anybody wants to see if we have collectively bargained for this already. The way the sentence reads is annual and current will step movements are subject to funding, and you are the board that would go ahead and get us funded, moving to the legislature. So it's already there.

Last Friday, we had teacher lobby day where we brought people to everybody's offices, and you got this booklet talking about our policy priorities.

Number one thing we're all working on is fighting the teacher shortage. To do that, you've gotta compensate us. I can bring you my pay stub for 21 years in public school classrooms. My salary is sad. We are definitely not compensated for what we can what we can do in the classroom, what we have been doing for our state for many years, especially post pandemic where things have been harder.

We know the cost of living is also much higher, here in other places, and so to keep up with moving forward, we've really got to compensate our teachers. This is done in the states that have the best education achievements, so this is kind of par for the course in Massachusetts, other states, and the nations that have the best educational outcomes. The step increases come with years of service just automatically. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have UPW with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Tuli Ta Phi on behalf of UPW. I will extend on my written testimony of providing comment. It is my pleasure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in opposition from DNF, Office of Collective Marketing with and support from Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus, also Democratic Party of Hawaii and Sport as well. Many, many individuals in support.

We need

Thank you. I should have counted this beforehand. Alright. Members, any questions on this measure?

Quick question. Sure.

Yes. Rep Kapela.

For HSTA, you folks really should just move closer. Yeah.

If the camera is the camera, I know it's not.

Good morning. Thank you for your testimony. I know that this is not the first year that we pushed you folks have pushed this, or the first time that we've heard this. Can you talk about

the hoops that you folks have to jump through if you want to get any type of increase?

Oh my goodness. Okay. Thank you for that. So the way to get increase, is to earn professional development credits. Every 15 credits of professional development, you can reclassify to go ahead and book the exam.

For that, for instance, so I just HSTA sponsored a master's degree program, so I just in December earned my master's degree at Spaulding University, that allowed me to get to class five, which is really sad, twenty one years experience with the moving up. But here's what I'll say, our salaries aren't moving with cost of living, and that problem is I can't afford to pay for a $500 class, that can automatically get me three credit hours to reclass. I also have to have that time.

You don't pay teachers enough in the state presently to have one job. So the idea is if I'm doing my tutoring job and I'm doing my other other jobs and I'm doing it, I'm hanging out here at legislature to put you off, I do not have time to take these classes.

And in other jobs, other professions in other states, teachers move up just by use of service anyway.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1770 and HD1 United School, School Bus Drivers. That's the test file of the special. We have Deputy Attorney General Anne Horiuchi, from the AG's office with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, Members, Anne Horiuchi from Deputy AG's office. As noted in our testimony, we were concerned that the bill didn't adequately address what should happen in the event any of these grants or signing bonuses to be paid. So in our testimony we provided some suggested language to that could be inserted into those who address that concern.

Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have executive administrator Daintree Bartoldis, with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Aloha Chair, Committee Members. My name is Chase Silver. I'm with the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities here for Daintree Bartoldis. We'll stand on our written testimony and support. We just wanted to highlight and echo that we've heard from parents with disabilities where their kids can't go to school because there's no school bus drivers. They've also kind of let us know that the communication around that is also not the greatest.

So and this also typically happens to most on the neighbor island. So we just wanted to highlight that. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next we have Keith Hayashi, superintendent for OS DOE with comments. Not here. Moving on, we have Angela Young from CARES in support on Zoom. Not present. Okay.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we do have representatives in support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus as well as two individuals in support. Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 2335 relating to workforce development.

First to testify on this measure, we have Jay Butay, director for DLIR, with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and members of the committee. I'm Jade Butay, director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony and offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Keith Hayashi, superintendent for DOE comments. Not here.

Moving on, we have Brenna Hashimoto, director for DHRD, with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. DHRD submitted testimony with some concerns, but I will note that we are very supportive of measures like this, and we, look forward to working with DOT to try to make it happen for them. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next we have deputy attorney general, Lin An Yamashiro or Lauren Sugai, AG's office. Comments on Zoom? Oh, or here.

We are here for HB 2346?

Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry. My apologies. We're still on 2335. 2335.

Okay. You can you can stay right there. I'm sure you'll be coming up soon. Okay. Next we have, deputy director Tammy Lee from department transportation and support.

Hello, Chair Sayama, director of the members of the committee. Tammy Lee, deputy director of the Department of Transportation. I just wanted to come up to the podium to say that, we're really passionate about having our students that have went away for college to have the opportunity job opportunities to return home. And that's really the intent of this measure. I think the civil service laws have been discussed in the past.

This is a very narrow kind of revision, which, generally, for internal, I guess, recruitment to be noncompetitive, you have to have spent six months in your position. So this is just really, limited to allow the intern that has worked with the department. So for example, over the summer, we had about a 114 interns.

We onboarded seven, but we would hate to, you know, have them mentor with us, work on projects with us, have them go back to college, and us not be allowed to offer them, you know, a position with us upon their time.

And just, you know, Kinda tell them if the HR's name on the list, provide application.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony and support from an individual. Members, any questions? For DHRD.

So you noted, DOT's testimony, right? They have been trying to, I guess, hire these former interns but had had challenges doing so. Under the current law, are departments able to show preference or provide some adjustments to the minimum qualifications to hire former, interns with the departments?

So, what we do at, DHRD, we factor in to their, minimum qualifications their internship as long as it's relevant to the job that they're doing. So for instance, if you're an engineer, you did, six months with, DOT, we'll factor that into making sure that that goes toward the the minimum number of years you need.

And so if the departments were requesting it, they would get the list with that applicant's name on on if they qualify.

Correct.

If they qualify, they would get them. Of course. You know, I mean, in a in a perfect world, the application is in on time and and yeah.

Okay. Thank you. DFT? Alright. So in practice, I'm curious what your experience has been.

Have you, you know, have you been encouraging former interns to apply? And if they have been, have they been making it onto the list of applicants that do qualify for the MQs?

So, so far we have onboarded about seven interns from our, semi program. We do tell them, you know, you have to get yourself on the list and, at times, it depends, I think, on the screen or whether they're screens in or screens out. I think it's been our experience for some interns that have been with us that they do not make the list. Even even when you know, I think after you get your bachelor's degree, you didn't qualify as a one.

Say, like, that's an engineering training in the example that, deputy director has given.

So we do just have challenges. I think it's because of the time that we spend and our mentors spend with them, and then to say that, you know, sorry, you have to get yourself on the list, but they might already it might take a long time for them to get on the list. And so private industry, maybe other federal entities have already, offered kind of employment to them, so we miss out on that opportunity.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Members, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 2468, relating to internship programs.

First to testify on this measure, we have University of Hawaii Systems in support.

Good morning, Vice Chair, members of the team of the board. Debbie Halbert, vice president of academic strategy. We stand on our testimony in support. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have Pete Payashi, superintendent for DOE in support. Not here, moving on to Director David Batay from DLIR in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. Jade Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony in support of the team.

Thank you. Next, we have doctor Brenna Hashimoto from DHRD in support.

Chair, Vice Chair. I neglected to announce who I was previously. So Brian Furuto, deputy director of DHRD. We are very much in support of things like this. We there are quite a few amendments, that we are asking for, but, you know, generally, we are, just like the legislature, we were, very supportive of internships.

Thank you. Next we have, Li Ann Yamashiro or Lauren Sugai from the Attorney General's Office. Comments?

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, all members of the committee. Deputy attorney general Li Ann Yamashiro on behalf of the department. Thank you for allowing us to submit comments. There is a potential equal protection issue in this bill because only public high school students are eligible to be entered under the internship programs of this bill. To avoid any equal protection issue, we recommend including a preamble to state a reasonable justification for the classification.

In addition, section two of the bill authorizes the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to contract with sponsors for on the job training and provides that the sponsors will be reimbursed for an insurance wages for for training and supervision costs. You suggest clarification on these contracts because a sponsor is defined as an employer, but also as any person, association, committee, or organization operating an apprenticeship program, and it is unclear whether the DLIR can enter into, contracts where the sponsor is not an employer.

And in those cases, the sponsor may function more like a trade organization. We have also suggested technical amendments to clarify the provisions in the bill and avoid confusion. And we also suggest clarification on when there are funds appropriated for contracts with trade organizations or sponsors that are not employers in addition to funds for contracts with employers.

We appreciate the intent of this bill and are available to work with the legislature and the Department of Labor to accomplish the goals in this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony in support from the Holocaust Resort Association, Hawaii Primary Care Association, and an individual also in support. Members, any questions? Sorry for that, AG's office.

So as you noted, both in your original and oral testimony, there are some concerns, specifically relating to the definition of the sponsor

And circumstances in which the sponsor is not the employer. Can you, maybe elaborate on this concern and and provide some kind of maybe instance in which this, concern would arise.

Correct.

So under the bill, the, the employers are reimbursed for the cost of the wages and, for the supervision and training. And, if the sponsor is not the employer, they are not the ones providing the supervision and training for the employee. And, the sponsor is not the employer, so the sponsor is not the one providing wages. So it depends on how the legislature wants to treat the sponsor who is not the employer.

Do they want it to act like a trade organization to facilitate the the, matching of the employer to the employee or or in other capacity.

But in those cases, such as a trade organization, they're not the employer of the employee. So, in that respect, I think there needs to be clarification on what what does the legislature want or, you know, in conjunction with the DLR, what do you you see how do you see that working? And that needs clarification.

I think the intent of the bill here is that the sponsor would be the employer. If that is the intent, does the AJ's office have any recommendation?

Yes. In this in this situation, the sponsor will not be the employer. Only the sponsor as an employer. Sponsor can be an employer in that capacity. They would be the employer of the the intern.

But so if the, legislation wants only the sponsor who is also an employer to be, able to for the DLR to contract with them, then that should be made explicit because a sponsor can also be, like, at the carpenter's union, and they won't be the exact employer of the employee. They will just, you know, direct the employee to, another carpentry employer. So that's what I'm trying to explain that they're not always going to be the employer of the employee.

Yeah. Okay. I see that. Thank you. Members, any further questions on this measure?

Seeing none, we can move on to 2091 relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and enjoin harassment of an employee. First to testify on this measure, we have, Deputy Attorney General Diana Suma Sumarta, from the AG's office.

Spent a good time here. Thank you.

And good morning, chair, vice chair, deputy attorney general, Diana Somarna. We did we offered comments mainly to balance, you know, being able to protect the public service while they are serving the people offline. And, I believe the latest development here, is that we ask that you defer the decision making on this particular bill. So that way, the bill can be further, worked on and coordinated. Okay.

Thank you, and I am available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have, Keith Hayashi, superintendent for DOE in support.

Not here.

Next, we have, staff attorney Nicholas Sarverson from judiciary in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Nick Severson, staff attorney at the Hawaii Supreme Court testifying for the judiciary in support of hospital two thousand and ninety one. As outlined in our written testimony, there's been a significant increase in harassment, acts of violence, and threats against public servants in recent years.

Hospital twenty ninety one would permit public employers to seek temporary restraining orders on behalf of public servants that face employment related harassment and would empower public employers to maintain safe working environments and ensure continuity of operations. In summary, the judiciary supports hospital three ninety one, and we respectfully, request that committee pass this measure.

And I'm available to answer any questions that you folks may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Next, we have UPW in support.

Morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee, do you need to file on behalf of UPW, we stand on our written testimony in support.

Okay. Thank you. Next we have Christian Fern, executive director for OOPLA in support. I'm here. Okay.

Finally we have Randy Perra, executive director for HGA and with comments.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebastien for I'll stand on our comments, we do respectfully request an amendment to broaden the definition of public servants to include all public employees within our state and its closing subdivisions. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we've no. That was it.

Okay. Members, any questions? K. Seeing none, moving on to HB 2092 relating to offenses against public servants. Just to testify on this measure, we have Keith DeAshi, superintendent DOE in support.

Not here. Next, we have Brandon Kimura, admin director for of the courts, the judiciary in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and committee members, attorney's lead, staff attorney for the judiciary's administration. Thank you very much for returning this bill today, which is part of our legislative package. We believe this bill makes an important update to the harassment statute to better address instances of threats and harassment towards public servants, which is a growing problem as you know. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Daniel Hugo from the Department of Prosecuting Attorney's Office from City and County of Honolulu with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, members of the committee. Daniel Hugo from the department of the prosecuting attorney for

the city and county Honolulu offering comment on this bill. Harassment is already a crime in Hawaii. This department prosecutes it and we stand with every victim. House bill 2,092 creates enhanced penalties for harassment, but only against certain people.

Legislators, judges, the governor, even retired federal judges with vacation homes here. Who doesn't get extra protection? Teachers facing screaming parents, nurses slapped in emergency rooms, retail workers enduring racist tirades, sexual assault survivors taunted by their abusers, children bullied in schools, whistleblowers facing workplace retaliation. This is not a public safety bill. This is a public status bill.

If judges need special protection for harassment, perhaps they should ask why. When courts won't hold offenders accountable, they don't just fail victims, they teach the community that laws don't matter. Three years ago, someone disrupted the opening of this legislature. And two months ago, mister Tanaka, your wonderful sergeant at arms, testified about it in court, and the evidence was overwhelming. The judge refused to convict, and the reasoning of that judge, if adopted, would gut this bill.

Judges won't enforce laws that that uphold this chamber's dignity. No new statute will remedy that. The words matter, but the people sworn to uphold those words matter more. I noticed prosecutors are on this protected list, Good. We don't want it.

Prosecutors face threats as part of our work. Defendants hate us for charging them. Victims blame us when we lose. Defense attorneys attack us all the time. We do this job anyway with clear eyes, thick skins, and brave hearts.

You cannot harass, annoy, or alarm a prosecutor. Perhaps judges might consider the same standard. This department will enforce any laws you pass, but we cannot stay silent when a bill creates two classes of victims, the powerful who merits special protection and everyone else who does not. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have UPW in support.

To reach five on behalf of UPW, we stand underwritten testimony support. However, I do wanna just note that it refers to public servant and it excludes rectified employees of the state of Hawaii. So we don't be asked that, two minutes, but to include all public employees of the state of Hawaii and its quota code sub divisions.

Thank you. Sorry. We did miss someone, from assistant public defender Haley Chang from the office of public defender for comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Caitlin Chang. I am the first deputy of the office of the public defender. We submitted comments on this proposal measure, and I do just wanna highlight some key points that I hope this committee will take away. We do believe very strongly that there are already several statutory measures to address the egregious behavior that I think we're concerned about.

I've outlined those in my written testimony, which includes terroristic threatening, obstruction of justice, obstructing government operations, and the already misdemeanor offense, sometimes class c felony offense of harassment by stalking. We do believe that there might be some issues that the community might wanna take a look at with regards to the nature of the individuals covered by this bill. Most of them are public figures, and by nature, they have increased interaction with the community.

What I do know about is the legal field, so I'll focus a little bit about on that. The legal field is, berated with pro se living aids. Many people who are representing themselves in criminal, small claims Recording in progress. Other civil proceedings. So sometimes that can create a situation where these indigent or pro se individuals are doing their best to navigate to the court system. So we just want the community to be mindful about the increased contact that can just come naturally with that situation. We also have some concerns about the continuation of status based enhancements, throughout the the penal code.

And I think we addressed it by saying that, you know, the for if that's a harassment exists, by continuing to include special categories of people, we're really subsuming the intent of the harassment bill, which was to be a petty misdemeanor based on the conduct outlined in the harassment statute. Statute. And then finally, we did propose some possible amendments that might cure some of the issues if the committee is intent on, moving the bill forward.

Just clarifying some of the constitutionally protected, behavior, clarifying what repeated contact might be in a public official context, and also consideration of requiring proof that the conduct did materially interfere with duties. So thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Randy Burrington, Executive Director for HGA, with comments.

Chair and vice chair members, Nui Sebastien Asper Achiye. We'll stand on our comments. We do request, very similar amendments to the last measure, which is to just broaden the definition of public service

to include all employees within the state or its political subdivisions. Thank you.

Any other persons here that does file this retro? Seeing none, members, we do have Richard Tesluia in support from University of Hawaii Professionals Assembly. Members, any questions? Okay. I have a question for Juicher.

Alright. So we heard testimony from the Office of Public Defender as well as, prosecuting attorney's office, re regarding basically why this bill is unnecessary or at the very least redundant, at the very worst, creates different classifications, for or certain privileges. You know, you your organization testified in support of this, so I'd like to provide you with an opportunity to, you know, defend that position. Why do you think this bill is necessary, right? Why why can't we just have the current laws in in place right now?

Yeah. So thank you for the question. Essentially the approach we're taking with this bill is to fill a gap that we see from

our own experience dealing with harassment or our own employees where there can be threats and inappropriate communications of the type that would interfere with and disrupt the person's work life and and get in the way of them getting their job done.

Basically, as was referred to, for true threats, credible threats, there's a legal standard that apparently is difficult to meet to classify as terrorist, like threatening. And so what we've noticed in our experience is that, for these types of inappropriate communications, it's harassment that is the most feasible charge that can be brought. So what we're asking here is to increase the penalty, when charges are brought under this offense, and when defendants are convicted, this bill does not in any way change the elements of the harassment offense.

It doesn't make it any easier to prosecute harassment charges. It does not expand, the types of conduct that would qualify as harassment.

It doesn't it doesn't, add any, other other types of protected speech, as harassment. All it

does is it elevates the penalties. If there's a conviction for harassment, the hope being that this would serve as a better deterrent to the types of threats and harassment that public servants are facing. With regards to who qualifies for protection on this bill, the define the definition of covered excuse me public servants under this bill was drawn from Chapter 93, which is a law that the legislature passed, two years ago to, better protect, the personal information of public servants online.

And so we thought that

it would be a good starting point for discussion as to which public servants might be protected under a bill like this. We did not, intend for this this to, make any judgments as to which public servants should be, protected or not. We leave that to the ledge, but we're just trying to initiate the conversation.

Okay.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Members, any further questions on this measure? Okay.

So enough, we'll be moving on to the last item of the agenda, HB 1878. This is relating to discrimination. Excuse me. First to testify on this measure, we have chair Sandy Livingston, from the Hawaii's the LGBTQ plus Commission in support. One zero.

Not present. Not present. Okay. Next we have Keith Hayashi, superintendent. Do you agree with comments?

Not present. Okay. Next we have Alfonso Braggs, chair for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission in support on Zoom.

Hi. Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. This is Heather McVay. I'm the deputy executive director with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and we submitted written testimony in support of the measure, which we loved. It would clarify that intersectionality is explicitly protected, as it stands now.

We do enforce that under Lamb versus UH and in practice and our policy. Also, regarding perception and association, it would clarify, and explicitly apply to all of the protected class classes under 3681. So we think it's a great improvement in codifying the protections that Hawaii offers. I'm here for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Sandy Mala from AUW Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Sandy Ma with AAUW of Hawaii. We stand in strong support of HB 1878. The primary purpose of the bill is to codify Lam versus University of Hawaii, which is a seminal case in establishing intersectionality law in Hawaii and across the nation. With the recent rollbacks that we've seen in federal law, we think that this is a great time for Hawaii to adopt this and to codify this decision.

As the previous testifier said, this is an excellent way to provide stability and understanding in Hawaii for employers and for just practitioners of employment anti discrimination law. And so thank you for hearing this bill, and we ask that, you move this out of your committee, unamended. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Michael Goloj Junior, president for Pride at Work, Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Good morning. Michael Goloj junior. He, him pronouns, president of Pride at Work Hawaii. Pride at Work Hawaii is proud to stand in strong support of this legislation. We view this as being able to protect our allies for far too many times to have our allies and discriminated against for their perceived being a member of the LGBTQIA plus community.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony in support from ACLU Hawaii, Society of Human Resources Management Hawaii is in opposition, and six individuals in support. Members, any questions on this measure?

And so we ask you to pass this bill, and we support it 100%. Thank you for hearing it, and have a great day.

Alright. Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess. Recess.

Alright. Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess. Recess.

Calling to order the House Committee on Labor, for decision making. First, we have HB 1892 HD1 linked to the Board of Education.

For this measure, we'll be putting technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style, noting this defective data already in place. Members, any comments on this measure? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. AB 1892. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Garrett?

Aye. Representative Coppell? Aye. Representative Khan? Aye.

Representative Ray Zoleda? Aye. And each chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1202 HD 1relating to teacher compensation. Based on the testimony that this committee has received, we'll be deferring this measure, noting that, the collective bargaining units can and should be, negotiating, this particular benefit, during the collective bargaining process. However, is there any comments? Representative Marazola.

Under I I read the testimony for, the DOE and it said it talked about fiscal constraints and that, they needed more funding if this is appropriated. This was also into in law from, I believe, 1969 to 2022. Not in law for the last four years, but in the contract, which means they already pay it. So in that case, the funding wouldn't be needed.

But on the testimony from the NAGI, they talked about, this bill, which would be called initial pricing, as subject to Chapter 89a, as a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

I think they missed 89.9 d, which says that it excludes initial pricing as a subject of negotiation. So I think that this this would be something that would be legislatively, allowed, and, you know, it's our job to make, delete, and amend laws. And within Chapter 89, we already have certain carve outs for schools, such as eighty nine ten point five and eighty nine ten point six. So Aye, I hope that this would have passed.

Thank you. Members, any other comments? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1893 HD one relating to education. Okay. I will be passing this measure forward as is.

Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair voting on House Bill 1893. Recommendation is to pass with amendments.

No vote. No. With as I see it.

I'm sorry. As recommendations to pass unamended as is. Any no votes? Reservations? Each chair recognizes adopted.

Thank you.

Moving on HB 1890 HD 1 relating to education. We'll be moving this to measure four with amendments. We'll be adopting AG amendments to amend Section two to replace the phrase in Section two pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement negotiated for bargaining units filed with notwithstanding any law to the contrary, if negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 89 dash nine. We'll also add language on page two lines 15 to 17 to include the full statutory range of relevant sections of HRS.

Similarly, we'll be doing the same on page two lines 18 to incorporate relevant sections of HRS, adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair of voting on hospital one eight nine zero h d one. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Chair, recommendations have adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 1770 HD one relating to school bus drivers. For this measure, while I do support the intent, to expand, school bus drivers across the state to address the shortage. I don't think this is the vehicle, appropriate to address this important problem, so I would encourage the introducer as well as the different stakeholders to continue to, work on this issue, and thank them for their work on this. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, I will be moving on to HB 2335 relating to workforce development. For this, we'll be, removing the savings clause in section two of the bill. We'll add technical amendments needed for credit consistency and style adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. I would like to note, that I would encourage the DHRT and DOT to work together, to address some of the concerns?

We, you know, as much as possible, I think we all agree that we shouldn't be trying to recruit, qualified applicants, especially if those applicants have already worked as an intern, for the department, in question.

So again, we'll be passing this measure forward with amendments. Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Board of House Bill 2335. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Thank you, chair.

Recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2468 relating to internship programs. We'll be moving this measure forward with a number of different amendments. First we'll be removing the restriction of the sponsor to only provide opportunities in private sector projects. So we'll be deleting languages from page two, lines 20 starting with provided that through page three, line two ending with private sector projects.

We'll also be adopting recommendations as well as the AG recommendation. Well, actually, no. This is the recommendation to strike the term public for high schools to make the program inclusive to all high school students in the state of Hawaii. We'll be adopting AG amendments to delete the term extraordinary from page four of line 17. We'll clarify that the cumulative GPA, qualification criteria applies to both high school and college students and graduates.

We'll be adopting DLIR amendments to clarify that reimbursement to employers or sponsors is for wages only. To do so we'll be replacing languages on language on page three, lines two to six, and page four, lines 16 to 18 with recommended language on page two of DLIR's written testimony. We'll make amendments to the bill to reinstate language clarifying qualifying graduates must have earned their degree within one year of applying for the internship program.

We'll add the phrase within one year of applying for the internship on page 14 at the end of lines thirteen and fifteen to be consistent with this intent. We'll also adopt DHRD amendments for page 15, lines four to eight to replace Xiao with Mei.

We'll add language on page 16 to include DHRD, suggest language to authorize DHRT to utilize appropriate funds for unspecified FTEs to implement the program. We'll note in the committee report the recommended, FTEs will be two. We'll add technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style as well as adding a defective date of 07/01/3000.

As this measure moves forward to the next committee, I would like to, work with, the AG regarding their concerns on, clarifying the definition of a sponsor and employer with regards to circumstances, but we'll be, working on that as this measure moves forward. With that members, we'll be passing this with amendments.

Any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you chair voting on House Bill 2468. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes? Reservations? Thank you, chair.

Recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2091 relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and enjoy harassment of an employee. My recommendation is to pass this measure form with amendments. We will be adopting AG recommend AG's recommendations to add a section to require formal request for representation by the department while providing the AG with discretionary power to decline requests of representation in the TRO and defer such requests to another government legal representative. Also adopt recommendation recommended amendments to the definition of public servant.

Adopt AG amendments to page 15 lines nine to 10. Adopt recommended definitions for credible threat of violence and unlawful violence. Adopt AG amendments to page 11, lines four to page 13, line 10. Adopt AG recommendations again to amend Section six zero four-10.5 subsection k. We'll add section for black appropriations to the department to implement this bill, adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Add a defective date of 07/01/3000, noting effective date be 07/01/2027. Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. voting on House Bill 2091. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes? Reservations?

Thank you, chair. Recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 2092 relating to offenses against public servants. We'll be adopting, some recommendations to expand the definition of public servants to apply to all public employees. Also be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Members, any comments? Seeing none, it's by the chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair voting on House Bill 2092. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes? Reservations? Thank you, chair.

been adopted. Thank you. Finally, HB 1878 relating to discrimination. We'll be adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style, adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments?

Recommendation has been adopted

Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Boarding on House Bill 1878. Recommendation is passed with amendments. Are there any no votes? Reservations?

Sam Kong. Representative

no vote or reservations? Reservations. Reservations.

Me too. Okay.

Reservations for Representative Kong and Representative Reiswoda. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Thank you everyone for sharing us a drink.