Senate Standing Committee on Education

Good afternoon. I'd like to call the committee on Education and Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts to come to order. Today is Friday, February 13, day before Valentine's Day. Don't forget, if you have a loved one, don't forget to get them something. We are meeting in Conference Room 229.

This hearing is being struck streamed live on YouTube. And if we must end this hearing due to technical issues, the committee will reconvene on Wednesday, February 18 at 1PM in Conference Room 229, and a public notice will be posted on the Hawaii legislature's website. And due to the number of people, as you can see standing outside, waiting to come in here for other issues, and because of the shutdown we had on Monday, we really have to had to move a lot of the, bills.

And I'm sorry, you guys were scheduled for Monday. And, because of this, we have part of you today and part of you on Wednesday. So, please bear with us. And if technical issues arise during the Zoom testimony, the committee may need to proceed to the next testifier and written much appreciated.

And so I wanna welcome my chair from Waterland and his committee. Welcome. So the first item is Senate Bill 2613 relating to public school land transfers, revises it to tax map key numbers and the conveyance process by which identified properties are conveyed to the Department of Education pursuant to act three zero seven session laws of Hawaii 2022. With that, first testifier is Stacy Aldridge.

Aloha, chair. Aloha.

Aloha, chairs Lee and Kim and vice chairs Kidani and Inouye and community members. Stacy Aldridge for the Hawaii State Public Library System. We've submitted our comments on SB 2613 relating to public school land transfer. The Hawaii State Public Library System requests the committee help to complete the separation of HSPLS from DOE that occurred in 1981.

Although operations and management for all public libraries was transferred to the board of education and the state librarian forty five years ago, control over the property for those libraries was never completed.

We believe that this is the most efficient and cost effective way for us to continue with managing our building projects going forward. My colleague, Mallory Fujifani is in the room to answer any questions that you might have and thank you very much for this opportunity to provide comments.

K. Thank you very much. Next is Sapphire, Keith Hayashi, DOE.

Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. This is a bill that was submitted through the governor's, package. It's a cleanup bill, for act three zero seven. We ask that some of the, TMKs are adjusted because some of the work that DOE has been engaged in, that we no longer need those in there. One one thing we are asking in our testimony, as an additional amendment is deleting, the land identified as TMK 43 Dash 6002, Parcel 10 is the Wilcox Elementary School.

That's on page four line seven, from the department to Kauai. Currently, the parcel is owned by the department, and we would like to transfer that to the county. That's tennis courts, and it's next to the city park. So a county park. Thank you.

Thank you. We had one individual signed up. Johnny Mae Perry in support. That person that obviously not here. Anyone else wishing to testify on twenty six thirteen?

Hearing none members, we're open to questions.

I had a question for, libraries. Stacy? Mallory? So what prompted this measure to come before us now? I mean, this has been an issue for a while now.

Right? Yeah. So can you just explain?

So we've had some issues over the years when we do construction projects and we do other things. And so about six months ago, we had a construction project that got delayed because of the issue about lack of site control. And so we so construction got delayed, and then we were eventually able to work at a right of entry and a MOA with the Department of Education. But going forward, it would be helpful if we didn't have to do that.

And then even more recently, not related to the public and school libraries, the Kahului Library, which we thought we controlled but completely,

the executive order. And so the noted on the EO, the executive order. And so the County Of Maui and actually Senator Hashimoto is the one that's forwarded me the email. They're needing DOE to sign off on that for us. So it's just a lot fewer steps if we can just handle it in house for our public libraries.

but I guess Department of Education still noted on the EO,

So can you explain the delay, lack of site control? Can you explain what what the I'm not sure what why it got delayed.

So the in that particular situation, the KL, we we're building a brand new library. The current library is at the middle of the parcel. We're building a new library for the public on the edge of the parcel. We tried to work with the DOE over the three years to get our CIP project out to bid. But, you know, it was difficult to get confirmation on things.

And then when we were ready to start construction, they said, hey. Wait a minute. You can't start construction because you don't have a right of entry.

Who said that?

The department of Ed. They basically told us we don't own the property because we're not listed on the executive order.

But then you folks have been working with them for three years on this.

Mostly, it was us trying to engage somebody with the department of ed to work with us. We finally got Kurt Otugoro to confirm that we could move forward with our project. So basically, the new library project is within the same TMK, but just on the edge so we wouldn't impact the students. Because right now, the library is in the middle of the campus.

Okay. Members, any other questions of, whoever? No. Hey, DOE. So why is it so difficult?

K. Okay.

I mean, what's the problem?

So there there's a couple of, I'm hearing issues. One is the testimony that was submitted, which I haven't seen yet, where the idea is that parcels that are state libraries on DOE lands should be carved out. Conceptually, without seeing what the testimony says, that sounds right. Some of the libraries that are on DOE land are sort of off and not on the main campus. And so, you know, it would make sense to sort of carve that out, subdivide, and get a new TMK.

So that sounds reasonable, but I I haven't seen the test Okay.

No. That part I understand.

The part I don't understand is how why has it been so hard for the libraries to get hold of somebody at DOE and then get the and then the the and then get a delay in the construction because they don't have the right of entry because, again, this is concerning what's going on over at DOE.

So the

Yeah.

It's one obstacle and another.

So for

that troubling. So for that issue, that's a separate issue separate from this bill. That was I'm familiar with that.

Separate from this bill because that's why we have this bill because they can't work with you guys to get this stuff going. Now we have to pass a law.

Oh, well, this this particular project you're talking about, this bill wouldn't have helped it because it was the library in the middle of the campus that they're moving to the edge of the campus. So in that project, it's moving forward. They started construction. You know, I wasn't around when it first started three years ago, but since I've been here, we've issued a right of entry and they've got everything they need to proceed.

My understanding is that because it's integrated with the campus, still, you know, even though it's on the more more of the corner, it affects the drop pick up drop off area.

Okay.

And so there was a lot of back and forth about how to get that

So when did you oh, that's oh, Jesse Sue Keith. Right?

Oh, sorry. Jesse Sue Keith.

Okay. So when did you folks start the try to start the construction, and it got delayed?

So we had our precon meeting in August, and we were supposed to start NTP was right after Labor Day, and we started construction end of August I mean, end of October.

End of October. Yeah. So you had to wait until end of October to to do it because you didn't have the the

Well, yeah. Actually, Jesse was very helpful in trying to move it along and to get the right of entry. But then they also, I guess, within the DOE, they decided we needed the MOA, which we we would normally execute after construction is completed.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank

you. Question.

So, deputy, I you know, do you feel that cutting out DLNR is actually gonna help you speed things up?

Cutting out DLNR?

Going be before BLNR approval. Right? Isn't this what what's part isn't part of the bill above that?

No. I don't I don't think so. The do act three zero seven transferred the intent was to transfer certain parcels by the counties owned and by the state owned to DOE.

So I'm reading in, it clarifies that the disposition of school building and facility grounds are made by DOE shall not require approval from the DLNR. Or is that already in the underlying statute? Are you guys asking for that as well?

That clarifies that clarifies the way it's supposed to be disposed of. Yeah. Right now, or

are you guys asking for that additional?

Because this question about, you know, whether it BLR needs to act, but because of operation of law, BLR doesn't need to act. That's an I'm sorry.

So you guys are currently going through them or you're not?

No. We're not. Because BLNR's position has been and, you know, they have a record of this. When acts transferring land like they did for like you folks did for Aglands, the DOA. And it's by operation of law.

It's the interpretation by BLNR, and they have a memo on this. It's in their records again. They look at operation of law as the land is transferred on that date circuit. And they don't do, like, quick claim deeds or something to formalize the transaction with Bureau of Records.

Okay. Okay. That that's fine. I think what I'm trying to distill it down to is so they're not they're not in hindrance of this process?

No.

So you you fully control this process?

Yes. Yeah. We we ask you for clarity. Yeah.

Yes. Okay. Well, hopefully, there's more clarity because I think it's been kind of slow. I think, you we've been trying to transfer lands, right, which you guys, I think, been unknowing that BLNR, you know, I think had to be involved in that those prop parcels. But it when I called them, they were never the problem.

So it seems like it's an internal DOE issue. Right? And so I hope hopefully, you you you will you folks will at least focus on doing land transfers in a more expeditious way. Right? And I don't I don't know what's holding it up because, you know, we we I have a property on Maui that's we've been trying to transfer to you since when I first got into office in '18, we started to to try and move it forward.

And, you know, Kishimoto at the time didn't move on it. So, you know, I think we're finally moving on it, but it shouldn't take that long to move a piece of land that's, I think, been trying to be transferred to the DOE from the early two thousands.

Right? So I I I So I don't know what's the problem. You know? I I hope you're asking for the right clarifications for us to speed this along.

Yeah. I I mean, I I agree. I've been I've been doing land use transactions for the past twenty years, and I I just joined DOE in September. And, every piece of land and parcel is different. That's what makes land use law exciting.

But, if if I can work with your office and what are the problem ones that you're pointing out that are sticking, we can try and figure out why why is it stuck. You know? There there could be a particular issue about it. It could be internal. But at at this I I don't know which exact parcel it is, but we can look at it.

Yeah. No. And I'm what I'm looking at is globally is so do we do we have people that are specifically working on this? Because I think at a certain point, we just put it on the back burner and say, oh, we we're gonna get it done. We're gonna get it done.

And then it just kinda never gets done.

Right? We do have a we do have a person

Is that new?

Assigned. He's been there for as long as I've been there. I I don't know if you how long he's been before that, but he was he's been there for some time.

Who is that?

Roy. Roy.

Kiketa. Yeah. Well, you know, I I think I've been working with him, and I think there needs to be some sense of urgency in in in how we transfer lands. And so I think we really need to take a deep dive to see what more can we do to make this happen. If we're gonna go at the pace that we were going, I don't think we're ever gonna get it done.

Kiketa.

So I think we need to we need to hopefully hopefully these clarifications will help, but I think there needs to be a deeper dive on what else what else needs to be done to to get this going and done. Right? Because if this is done, then we can move on to other things, but I feel like we're just taking really long.

I'll I'll dig into that. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

So if you folks have total control, what why do you need clarity? Can't don't you folks would do your put clarity into it since you control it?

Well, so one one of the reasons why DLNR takes the position that, it's not gonna issue, some kind of transactional document for lands that are transferred by operation of law because that can take a long time, especially if it's land court issues. So, but when you need some kind of thing documented, even if it's operation of laws, if you're working with third parties. So, like, for an easement, like with HECO, you need more than operation of law.

HECO wants to see, you know, like a, you know, quick claim deed or something. So that might take more time.

But What you just said you just said that that's not the hindrance. The DLNR is not the hindrance, that you folks have complete control of the process. So but you're saying you want clarity, but wouldn't you folks be the ones to put the clarity in it? Yeah. If you have control?

Well, we we would prefer clarity from the legislature that these happened from that date served and by operation of law, and that that would really make it clear for everybody, that this is an action that has happened. Right?

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Oh, Senator,

Thank you.

yes, thank you chairs. My question and comment with regards to chair on Section four, page 21, and this has to do with the public use after school is out. And the comment I have is that, the department, you will assess fees, which you have been doing right now for public use, which is, to me, I think amenable that you have some income.

However, the question with regards to parking, when it says any parking on roadways, and in parking under the jurisdiction, and this is on the next page, on page 22, under the jurisdiction of the department, and this has to do with 301-1151, that you will be charging a separate fee for parking on roadways near a school. And knowing Oahu and the population here, there are many cars that I see that are parked after school hours that are parked near schools.

Are you already collecting fees for that or charging?

So this would fall so a couple of things. One is this is only for property that's under the jurisdiction of DOE. So that includes some roadways, but not all roadways. So we couldn't charge parking for

So, like, a city county. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But, these facility use, procedures, we have rules for it and, you know, how much they can charge. We have a process. It's done by, school by school, by, principals and their administration.

Okay. So when you're talking about the the jurisdiction then it's more internal than within the property and not outside of

of a room? Yeah. Not outside of the

the parking. Okay. Alright.

Thank you. Thank you, chief.

So we have a question?

I just have one comment, which is, love to follow-up on the some of the land transfer process later on. Offline discussions. Some other properties I know we've been talking about where there's tens of millions of dollars sort of on the line Yeah. But it's based on the timeline. So

Happy to help with that. Hopefully, we

can sort this out.

Yeah. Thanks.

Santosh, you wanna I

I just wanna make clear, deputy, that on page 21, you are deleting the whole section regarding the the the BLNR transfer. So you should just know that. Right? And you should be clear because you said the underlying statute already gave you that, but we're taking that whole part out on page 21. Right.

Because Right?

So now now we're act the legislature is actually taking it out, which is not that that's not what you said before.

So so to so to be clear, when you look at these land transfer bills that the legislature has issued for, like, again, the the DLNR, DOA lands, there's there's different bills like this. The language is sometimes different in in different bills, but, generally, we interpret it as by operation of law. So we just want clarity across the bills.

And if you strike this out, that'll make it clear that it's by operation of laws and that we're not required to get some some kind of documentation that we submit to the Bureau of Conveyances, for example, unless we need it because we're working with a third party.

I I understand, but I think we're you should be clear with us that the bill does, in fact, give you that authority here to not have to do that.

It does cleanly transfer the land.

Yes. Right. But you were saying that you already have that power, but you don't.

Well, that's that's an interpretation we make, but we would like the clarity. Right.

Okay.

Well, I just wanna make sure people because peep if people are actually reading the bill, it it clearly is striking that section out.

Yes. It is. Okay.

Thank you, chair.

Can I comment just just with regards to the land division regarding the the the current the previous speaker was that the land transfers that we did several years ago identified certain areas which you have under your jurisdiction now? But this is in addition to the the land transfers we did previously, then this takes care of all the TM case to be part of that.

Transferred counties and yeah.

So this We did that a couple of years ago. Yeah. The county lands and the state lands.

And we appreciate that.

Certain school areas.

And so but this only this amends an existing act. We're not adding anything

Yes. Right.

new. Right.

So you're just adding more to that act with the TMKs listed in the measure. Yeah.

We're cleaning it up, actually. Yeah.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Okay. There's no other questions. We'll move on. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, SB 2147 relating to Love My Library Day, which designates the first Friday in February each year as Love My Library Day in the state. And we do love our libraries. So, up first is the Hawaii State Public Library System.

Just want you to know we purposely did it a day before Valentine's Day so, so we can love our libraries today too.

Awesome. Mahalo, Chair. Stacey Aldrich. State librarian, Hawaii State Public Library System. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify from one of our well-loved libraries, the Princeville Public Library in Kauai. We stand on our written testimony, of course, in full support of SB 2147.

This bill acknowledges an important reality. Libraries are vital spaces in our communities that create opportunities for all to read, learn, and connect to ideas, information, technology, and each other. This day is not a state holiday, but it is a statewide statement. A reminder that our Hawaii libraries don't just store knowledge, but they spark possibilities. I thank you for your support.

I wish you all a happy, happy Valentine's Day and mahalo this opportunity.

Thank you very much.

Up next is the Department of Education.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, Chair Lee, Vice Chair Inouye. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We stand on our stand on our testimony in support. This measure elevates the profile of school libraries. It encourages community advocacy, and it reinforces the critical role that libraries play in fostering literacy and student success.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have That's everyone who signed up to testify with three additional organizations and 11 other individuals in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Nobody loves their libraries. Thank you, everybody. Let's move on.

Excuse me, are there any questions? Alright, seeing none.

Let's go into decision-making. Turn it back over to the chair.

Okay. Thank you. We're on decision making on Senate Bill 2613. This is the school land transfer. Recommendation is to amend the measure to include part three, section one, subsections A, B, C, and D.

This amendment would clarify the statutory requirement for the transfer of lands that the public and school libraries are situated on, from the Department of Education to the Wise State Public Library System. This will ensure clear ownership, improve long-term planning, capital improvement coordination, and align operational responsibilities with property control. Senate Bill 2613 transfers to DOE 51 library properties. This amendment would then allow for the transfer of 12 public and school library properties to the Hawaii Public Library System.

We'll also take into consideration the request, from the DOE regarding Wilcox Elementary School and make technical and non-substantive amendments.

Members, any discussion, any questions? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote for 2613. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Committee on Water Land, same recommendation.

Okay. Thank you. The Committee on Water, Land, and Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation to pass SB 2613 with amendments. Chair Lee?

Aye.

Vice Chair goes aye. Senator Chang is excused. Senator Lamosao.

Senator DeCorte.

Aye.

Aye.

Measure is adopted, Mister Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. And this joint hearing is ajourned.

Oh wait, we have the other one.

That's okay.

Okay, IT you didn't dog us out right. Okay, sorry.

That's all right.

Moving on to SB 2147 relating to Love My Library Day. Seeing all testifiers in support, recommendation is to move out with tech amendments. Yeah, non-substantive amendments. Any discussion?

Seeing none, Vice Chair.

The committee on Water, Land, Culture, and the Arts, chair's recommendation to pass SB 2147 with amendments. With four members present, any voting with reservations? Any no votes? Hearing none, Vice Chair, Chair, Lee, measure is adopted.

Same recommendation for the committee on education, and I do love my library, so Chair votes aye. Thank you. And now we're adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.

For the committee on education, we are on a 1:05 agenda. Today is Friday, February 13. I will dispense with the other comments regarding if we have any difficulties. We have difficulties all the time. But the first item on the agenda is Senate bill 6 I'm sorry.

Two six zero two relating to general fund, requires the excess funds for the University of Hawaii tuition and fees special fund at the end of the fiscal year lapsed to the credit of the general fund. And we have Tom Yamachika testifying for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Tom, are you there?

Thank you, chairman and vice chair, members of the committee. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. But it seems like most of the people testifying on this bill see it as a read. We we look at it as a technical fix. The statute already provides for lapsing to the credit of a program IDs.

You will UOH 900. I I think the problem is to I think that's the problem because UOH 900 is a program designation. It's not a fund. So it looks to me like a technical fix, but if it's not, then we think there are much better candidates for rating.

We will take that under advisement.

A message to the chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you. Okay. We have next, president of the university, Wendell Hensel and Luis Olivera. And it's good to see the chair of the Board of Regents also here.

Thank you, Jenny.

Regent Lee, Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair. We rest on our testimony in opposition of this measure and are here to answer any questions you have. Okay.

Let's see. We also have had testimony from Christian Fern and from Leilani Dimelo in opposition. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Hearing none, members, we are open for questions.

Sorry.

Okay. So, President, if you'd like to come forward. I guess the question that was raised during the ways and means committee and also during our briefing about the excess balance that is left in the tuition and fees fund and plans that you might have for those monies, which we don't we never got a definitive list of what the what those might that might be.

And also, I guess the concern's been raised since about consolidating all of that balance left over other than the 16%, reserve as to coming directly from the community colleges. So, president, if you wanna go ahead and No.

I'm happy. Appreciate the opportunity to to speak to this. And in response to the the testimony, this is this is a major shift in how the university would be funded. This would not be a technical amendment. As you know, currently, fund balances for tuition and and special fees after the year is over remain.

They they come back to the university central fund and go back out to each of the other funds, which is how they are currently held. The, the problem, which I think you all identified, is that there is a significant amount of money in those balances that is not being productively employed for strategic purposes.

In part, that is because they are held at the individual level, and our goal is to begin thinking of how to use those funds productively to be invested for the benefit of the whole. You know, all of our campuses are just a different way of saying students across the university. They are all students of the University of Hawaii.

There are different challenges that arise at different times for different campuses. Having the ability to control that kind of investment centrally is a huge benefit. But, importantly, nothing has happened in that regard. Those monies are 100% under the control of each of the individual campuses at this time. So I'm not sure where the perception came that it was centralized.

It's not. It's actually held at each individual campus. There's nothing, in fact, that is standing between them and spending that money. And I have, on more than one occasion, asked those chancellors to identify strategic investments for which to which to to employ that money that is sitting there. And, and I'm not I haven't seen anything particularly that we're able to move on.

So part of my challenge is where are the centralized issues like EAB Navigate and student success and creating a common standard of care for each student across the university is the point. And it's not I I think Luisa's new, but we've always taxed those accounts to do centralized functions. It's the only way that we can.

Where there is, you know, common technology or there's common things that are employed across the tent, the fact that it's sitting in individual counts doesn't mean we aren't using it for the benefit of the whole. So that that there's no change there from where we currently have been.

Members, any any questions? Senator O'Shaughnessy Brown?

Thanks, president. Maybe you can clarify what what are the balances Sure. That, you know, I guess, maybe start with the biggest, which is Manoa and, you know, who's the biggest? Who's the smallest? And what's the aggregate, I suppose, if you add them all up?

Sure. I believe VP Salaveria has that information.

Yep. Thank you, Senator. Luis Salaveria, vice president, CFO for the University of Hawaii. Right now, the largest balance of the tuition and fee special fund does exist within Manoa. But if you look at the overall distribution of of how it is between the four years and the two years, The four year campuses have approximately 185 in tuition and fee special balance, but the community colleges have approximately 142.

So it's very close when you think about, the difference between the four and the two year colleges. But to specifically answer your question, Manoa is the largest with approximately 93,000,000, in the tuition and fees special fund. The smallest in this particular case would be Windward Community College at about 6,600,000.

And then what what is the difference between what is your policy versus what is excess?

It is approximately about 100 it's about a $101,116 170,000,000 between the 16% policy versus the balance. Because right now, the balances that we have in the reserve in the reserve accounts is approximately 144, of which the total balance in the tuition and fee special fund right now is 326.

Okay. Go ahead. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, chair. Because currently, you h, you can retain your unspent balances, and you don't have to report it? No. We we do report We do report it. You report it. But I think the bigger picture is the disclosure and the reporting process because how often do you report it? Not annually.

Oh, yes.

We do report annually. It's part of the annual report that we do provide to the legislature.

Yeah. This is this is all very public information that repeatedly is reported. Part of the reason we're talking about it is I have raised the issue, as you know, Senator Kim, of my concern that we are not using these funds. We should never be sitting on on these kind of funds without productively employing them in some type of research or a return for the university.

I think I'm I'm just hoping people can go in and out because every time the door opens, it's hard to hear. I think the concern is that the way it's it's put out because it's not all in one place sometimes. Even when we ask a budget a reason means, it's not clear. I know you you sent me the CIP. I called you back, and I said, you know, I'm still not getting the information that we asked for.

So I think that's where some of the points is coming is that while you give us pages and pages of stuff, it's very hard to decipher because it's not clear as to how some of these some of these funds.

Sure. It's like now when you when we had this reserve balance, you lumped up all of the community colleges. Correct. And then I asked for it, and then we have to ask again to finally get it written down by community college to see exactly there is seven commute seven or nine community colleges? Seven. Seven community colleges and four, right, for four year?

Three three. Three. Three four year. So and they're almost the same, but we got seven campuses at the at the 100 and and 142. $42,000,000.

I I think part of that and we're always happy to report in whatever form that you prefer, but you allocate the money to the seven as a number. And so we both have the reporting from the from the Senate and and the legislature as to how we receive the money, and then we have internal accounting principles of how it's broken down between the seven. Quite often, that money is held at the community college level for that system within a system.

So it actually is it's both and. It's and it's how you want that information reported. We're happy to provide it.

Yeah. And I think the problem is with while it sits at the community college now, the understanding is that there was possible there was a, proposal possible proposal to take all of the money and centralize it from each of the community colleges. And the I know the community colleges are concerned because some of them have been very fiscally responsible, so they have some nice balances there.

And and then I know, like, in Manoa's case, there's a lot of spending that have gone on in a lot of areas in which they have some possible shortfalls there. And so the community colleges feel like, you know, that they shouldn't be supplementing for Manoa and some of the mistakes that Manoa might have made.

So as long as you keep it with the with the community colleges and then ask them, you know, can we have monies for certain projects that will encompass and and benefit all of the campuses, I think is probably what they would prefer, at this point. But so if we don't scoop the balances, or raid the balances or whatever, technically, take the balances, then what assurances do we have that you're going to leave the monies with the community colleges?

Well, I think the important thing to point out first and foremost is the legislation actually sweeps that money back to the send that that is your own legislation that sends it back to the system. So, and that is not what we're doing at this moment. So it's an interesting position in which we're having this conversation. But there has been no directive to do that.

I mean, again, candidly, I'm not sure what the benefit is of sitting on money that's not being productively employed for the benefit of all of our students.

The way that we the way I can just say for me personally, but my entire team, we are interested in serving students. Whether they sit at the community college or Manoa, it is not to benefit one campus, but it is to provide an equivalency in terms of support for the students across every campus. And candidly, sometimes the allocations that come out of the legislature create imbalances in that, which you're entirely you know, that is entirely legitimate, but it doesn't erase the need on the campus.

So at this moment, there's absolutely no intention of rating the community colleges in any sense for for the benefit of Manoa. And, as part of the good faith of that, as you know, we are splitting my position from the community I'm sorry, from Manoa into just the system for exactly that purpose because there is this churn and there is this concern that if I sit in both of these positions, it creates some favoritism toward one.

So, you know, what I can assure this body is that is absolutely not the intent of anything we've done, and this is really these are fears that are being articulated as opposed to a response to any action that we've taken.

Well, I I appreciate that, and I agree with you. I think that one of the problems, and for me, having been chair, I've never really saw what each campus has. And if I knew that they have a balance, then when they come in and ask us for positions here, positions there, and money's for this, then I could have said, hey, you've got a $39,000,000 balance sitting in your community college. Why aren't you tapping that?

But because it's not been reported to us as such that I don't have that ability, but now that we're getting that information, I know exactly what the community college is.

And when they come into us, then I'm going to ask them, what are you doing with your balances? Because I agree we shouldn't be sitting on, you know, anything.

And we will make that information available. Yeah. We're we're happy to report because and that was one of the first questions I had because most of it is reported in the aggregate for the community colleges. That's that concept of a system within a system that creates some tension and some confusion, honestly. Yeah. So these are all these are all things I'm in complete agreement with you.

We need to work toward creating that transparency.

And the community college has to be accountable as well. Absolutely. And there are some some campuses that need it more than others. And yes, we've we've done that, but not looking at what the balance is now that we know those balances.

Thank you, chair. And, you know, for the university to be able to sit on this excessive amount of funds indefinitely without any oversight could also be very problematic as well. So I think the transparency is good. I think the accountability is good, and I apologize for misspeaking. But the reporting in addition to what the strategic plan on these excessive funds, are I I think is important for you folks to lead in this initiative to bring this information for us rather than have to propose a bill and then get the conversation started and then get these reporting. So

Understood. And as for the I mean, that is why we specifically did not ask for funding this year except for two things where the state investment was a critical component of it. We have to manage our money internally. I don't want anybody to ask me for a dime when they have a dollar in their hand. And I feel the same as we come to you and ask for funding.

We need to get our house in order. And what I can tell you is there are many initiatives, which I think we've shared with you in terms of really significant investments in AI, etcetera, that the reason you don't have a list in front of you of those expenditures is because that's still being put together. I'm happy to share those with you as we put those. But, you know, the the effect of this bill isn't just to take that money.

It is to handcuff the university forever from being able to spend any type of balance that carries over for long range planning, for debt service.

So there are very, very significant implications to this particular bill as written. And there's many things that we can do to be more, you know, more forthcoming so you know what's happening. Yeah.

So so I I think your point is well taken. But I think if if you look at what we're faced with, right, I think when you see this big balance and and, you know, there hasn't been much details, I think you're formulating it. But I think we have to react because we we really wanna see some action with this this this balance. Right?

Senator Hashimito?

And I think to me, part part of what I'm hoping that you will do and you will take a look at is assure us that there will be a policy shift.

You know, I I hopefully, the the chair of the regents, you know, is here. And so he hopefully understands that the board if you're 16% is what you'd you know, is if that's the base, fine. Okay. That's the regents policy. But I hope you institute another policy to really give campus guidance on what they should be carrying over.

Right? I think in DOE, it's, like, 5%. Great. You know, that's all they get. And Agreed.

And if you don't if you exceed the 5%, then we're gonna take it or, you know, so at least but at least you're showing you know, I I understand you on a spending plan, but part of it is how do we stop this from happening in the future. Right?

And I think that's that's

the bottom line.

We are totally in alignment. The challenge is, of course, there is the concern that if I do take that money, right, that is what's okay. Some of us

are policy. Right?

But it's more than a policy. It's the ability of chancellors to envision forward strategy for their campuses. So that is accountability that I am imposing upon them that you don't just come, for example, once a year to show me your numbers, but to show me the investment and the mentality so that if there are investments that they need that exceed their balances, we can support that to move the university forward.

Some centralized funding has to be available to do that or it is each man for himself on each campus regardless of need or regardless, frankly, of vision. Some, you know, I think, for example, you know, in in Leeward in West Oahu, there's some really exciting work that's being done there that's being led by chancellor Pena Loza.

That is driven by chancellor Pena Loza. If I'm not seeing that on other campuses, I need to respond in a way that insists that that occur. But what I can tell you is the first question I asked my leadership team in the interviews is why are you sitting on these large balances? Because it isn't optimal, and it doesn't reflect good strategy. It is unique.

I I will say that. And I think it's important for you all to know that. Usually, the university is not in this position and likely will never be in this position again. This is a reflection of COVID and federal funds that came in. And so what it creates is a one time opportunity for significant investment at a moment of considerable change for the university, and we have to move forward on that.

But you your your point about it should not look like that is absolutely correct, and it's just you're it takes some time with me coming in new and setting the new strategy around what we've already what we're building on to really execute that. But we've already spent Yeah.

Price.

No. No. And I get it. I I think I think hopefully within the next couple of months, we'll see some some more clarity.

But Happy to show you.

But but I think, you know, the that a certain point, the campuses also need to know what their parameters. I think it was unchecked. Right? And I think you may be a great president now, but, you know, you you're not gonna be none of us last forever. And so I think if we can build internally, you know, the policies in place, really, that's really important.

Accountability is necessary, and it let it it's at multiple levels. Right? Agreed.

Yeah. I think Senator DeCote and I would be fine if you gave it all the chance for Penelope. So

You know, interestingly enough, they have the smallest balance.

So it's a good example for me to show you of where if we are strictly driven by any particular campus' balances, they will be the clear loser. In part, because they have to pay debt service out of the money that comes into West Oahu. Most other campuses don't have to do that. So part of the equity question I'm asking is how do we serve the West Side in an equitable way when they are inequitably taxed with what comes out of their allotment?

Yes.

And that can only be done with a little more flexibility and a little faith, and I understand that there that's in short supply, but a little faith in our ability to manage the whole to ensure equity across the whole.

Well, appreciate your leadership in that, West Oahu, obviously. I think that, you know, they do have one of the smallest balances. I noticed that. But also, they have a program, a business program, which is the it seems like a premier program that's been growing and not been given enough resources. And and it's sad that that's that's occurring.

And those are the kinds of areas that we look at and then possibly step in to try to assist them. Because if they're doing a good job and the leadership prior was saying, well, you're such a big program that we're gonna focus on the smaller programs, and then they didn't assist on the business side. And that that that's really sad. Yeah. But we certainly have to look at that.

The other area when we talk about policy shift, and I know you weren't here for that hearing, but when we talked about the travel moratorium, I mean, this is clearly an area that even though you have these huge balances, we still need to keep everybody in check as far as are we actually, you know, using the the tuition funds monies, taxpayers monies Right. Responsibly because there's excessive travel going on, not just at the University of Hawaii.

The DOE has that as well and some of the other departments. And so we wanna see it a pause. And if you read the bill, you know that it doesn't cut it out entirely.

So we hope that the board of regents will take a look at that and and look at what the policy and sometimes the policy is there, but it's the execution and the oversight is just not given.

Yeah. So a couple things. You know, with all due respect, I would hope that I or the system can step in to fund business when it's doing well where there are insufficient funds at the campus level. Right? We should never never anyone at the system should be coming to this legislature when we are sitting on money that can be productive.

Can we have that printed out and and

Let it go. It's

common sense. Right? I mean, it's just common sense. That does require flexibility to be able to move money and have some fungibility between it. But I I agree with you.

That's a place to do. On the travel, what I wanted wanted to say, there is an extensive approval process that occurs, and we are implementing a new policy where if it if it exceeds a certain threshold, it must go to an additional layer of approval to, an an EM. So we are already moving on that.

We're we're gonna start instituting additional policies above that. And, essentially, we've heard the legislature and the concerns.

Okay. I appreciate that because I know the testimony came that they were in opposition of that measure. And, again, you know, we're trying to give everybody a chance to get it right and not have to pass a law as to travel. Agreed. I mean, we want you folks to be responsible in doing that. And I think in most cases but I I you you have a large institution, and so is DOE.

It's a large institution, but even more so, that kind of oversight is really needed because the taxpayers are looking at. And I just wanna say for the record because I've read some comments about well, what about the legislature? You know, I want you to know that majority of us when we travel, we our airfare and our hotels are taken care of by the nonprofit entity that is inviting us to these seminars and to these conferences.

And so and we list every every scholarship that we get, we list on our gift disclosure. So if anybody wanna know what trips we went on and how much was paid for by an entity, they can go on to our gift disclosure and see that.

I just wanted editorial app because people do say, oh,

what about the learning Understood. We we agree. In fact, I I thought some of the concepts that you included, for example, of a limit of the number of people that can attend the same conference is one that we are are looking at internally. That makes sense. Right?

And and that kind of accountability, just to tie it back to the larger bill, if there is an expectation that you spend it or we sweep it, it will lead to some frivolous spending in order to spend it down versus the ability to carry over from year to year to invest in larger scale, more impactful things. So there there's legitimacy to everything you're saying, and I I really can tell this committee in absolute honesty, we are working on all of these things.

And you're looking at how we can use, you know, computer and digital and Zoom and all of that because, you know, if if anytime, it's now in which we're finding more and more people virtually working, you know, and so forth. But if you can do that from home, then why do you have to go travel to South Carolina or to, you know, China to to send?

And there are some there are some, you know, very, very worthy type of trips that, you know, it's good to take, and we realize that because we do travel. But, again, we gotta keep in mind how we balance the taxpayers' dollars because they wanna travel as well. Right?

So yeah. So I I hope DOE shares your folks' attitude because, certainly, they did not express that during that hearing. So any other questions? Okay. Thank you.

You might wanna sit there because the next item is off, so you

Folks. We'll just stay.

Okay. Senate bill 2658, also relating to the University of Hawaii. It requires the Board of Regents to expend funds appropriated to new, improved, or modernizing existing University of Hawaii facilities for only those purposes and not for current ongoing or anticipated capital improvement projects. And so let's see. Same cast of characters, I assume.

Well, actually, we have here, AG. Real quick. Yeah. Sorry. Technical amendment.

Good afternoon, everyone. Deputy Attorney General Kathy Spark. The Department of Police Attorney General recommends indicating that the bill is a law of state wide concern.

Thank you. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate that. And then we have, let's see, Jan Gouveia signed up, so that is you. Sure.

You don't look like Jan Gouveia, but

Vice president of the university, we will stand in our testimony in opposition here to answer any

Okay. Well, I want you to come forward. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Okay. So you wanna I know we have your testimony here. Did you wanna elaborate at all?

questions.

So I think as the way that the bill is written, and I think I I do understand the need in order to grain to gain a little bit more clarity around, the RIM funding. Because the RIM funding is a lump sum budget that the university gets.

But if you look at the way that the bill is written and how you cannot use it for for new capital improvement projects, that essentially is what RIM is because RIM is kind of an ongoing, you know, expenditure of, like, deferred maintenance of new projects as they come on board. I think if the intention really is to to say that you cannot use RIM funding for specifically appropriated CIP, I don't know if that's what this bill actually does.

So you're advocating for that instead?

I think that that would be a discussion that we should have. I'm I mean, I I don't wanna speak for the vice president of administration. But as it stands right now, I mean, our RIM funding and we are trying to get a much a much better hold on the way that we actually allocate funds towards capital expenditures.

I think one of the things that we deal with and and this is not a this is not a problem unique to the university, Senator, is that we have and we get appropriations for CIP projects. And and oftentimes, those are based upon a conceptual spec of what they think the project would be.

I think it's imperative upon us that if there are going to be cost overruns, if there are gonna be, these types of increases in expenditures for projects going forward, that we inform the legislature, and we ask for that money going forward.

So the utilization of RIM in in order to accommodate our what it should be used for, which is to accommodate our our extreme backlog in deferred maintenance is something that we need to go back and basically get a better hold on the way that we're spending money on our deferred maintenance requirement. So that's where I think, you know, I the way the bill is currently written basically doesn't doesn't address that.

In in in many ways, it might render RIM unusable because it is a lump sum appropriation for for new divert.

Right. And I think, you know, it's always my goal that the entities or the departments manage themselves. And when they fail to manage themselves in areas, then we end up sending these kinds of bills, and it may have unintended consequences, which is why we have these hearings to fix that. But, you know, you come in specifically for CIP, and you tell us the project, you tell us the cost, and we give you folks that money.

Then you come in, and we have repair and maintenance or rent monies for improvements.

And you want a lump sum budget or, you know, in the past, we didn't give lump sum lump sum because you want some flexibility. We gave you that. So, you know, now you wanna say, well, you know, we should be able to use that in. No. That's not the intent.

But that's how you folks have been using it.

And we wanna be clear. I think our intention is to follow the in the legislative intent. It always will be to follow legislative intent. So I think if the legislature, you know, would want us to be a lot more, you know, again again, accountable

Well, shouldn't you folks I mean, isn't that should be common sense in the sense that to be accountable? If you come in and ask us for Sinclair and you give us a amount of money and we give you that money, now you're over. You can't just go run and go take it from from RIM because we have so many projects. You have all these housing projects, students housing that needs repair and maintenance. You have deferred maintenance, and yet you're using it to over cost overruns Yeah.

Cost overruns of these projects instead of holding that entity accountable for those cost overruns. You know? I mean, came in here and flippantly said, oh, yeah. Sinclair, we're over. Oh, yeah.

We use, you know, rim monies. Oh, yeah. We, you know, it's not gonna it's gonna be delayed another year, two years. I mean, just like and the private sector should be gone.

I I understand. And And

it wasn't just one project.

And you have my commitment. I and I I want to work closely with, with the vice president of administration. I think, when it comes to issues, I mean, there are multitude of reasons why cost increase based upon it. I mean, scope creep is a big thing that exists throughout all of state government. But then we also need to do a better job with that.

When there is changes in project scope or anything like that, that we're also doing the the the reverse, which is the value engineering proposition in order to bring projects in line and and so that we don't exceed that. But these are these are concepts that we need to

So how do you adjust, like, McCarthy Mall? They came in for monies. We gave them monies, and all of a sudden, they they increased the scope. It was supposed to be only drainage and then decided, oh, we're gonna make the mall. You know, we're gonna beautify the mall and spend another $17,000,000 and take it out of either tuition monies or take it out of RIM.

You know, again, where are the priorities?

And and, certainly, I cannot speak for the decisions that were made in the past, but I think going forward, the intention really is to hold the line on what we are proposing to do with capital expenditures because it is it is a significant expenditure of the university that has implications not just on what you provide to us in CIP, but also on tuition and fees On the lump sum RIM budget.

So part of this whole process is to gain a lot more, I guess, accountability around how those

work. I also hope you look at the structure as well because that vice president is in charge of majority. I mean, if she's if she's not focused in on this, then, you know, I I I don't I have a hard time understanding how, you know, just alone, her performance alone shows that she's not performing as as she should be. So that needs to be

Yeah. That I mean, again, candidly, that was something I identified right when I came in, that this is something and this is not this is not a job. This is, like, many jobs that are that are put together for VP Govea. I think we were laughing last year about wearing the yellow parking vest, right, which was funny but not funny as as sort of a, you know, all all terrain athlete.

The reason that hasn't devolved yet is because it will devolve as part of the MANOA split the with the chancellor.

So those conversations are happening right now as to what how what belongs on the campus, what makes sense for it to be there. I mean, because Manoa is our biggest campus in terms of of projects, right, and and what belongs at the system. So that job will naturally be split as part of this process that we're doing. That's the intention.

Okay. Well, it's taking longer than than I'm comfortable with at this point in time. But, Senator Hashimoto, you had a question?

Oh, this bill would close that legislative loophole. I mean, it will close the loophole because right now we're basing all of this on interpretation and intent where we're gonna have to make the lines clear with the next set of leaders that come in because it provides too much of an opportunity to move the money around where if we're giving you a lump sum, maybe we should shift that over to direct appropriations, because this is a flaw that we're seeing overall, not just in your department, but in other departments as well.

And not to shift gears, but also in vacancies. We know that that funds is used as a cushion to tack onto other salaries. So, you know, to ensure that the legislature is not being misled when we approve where these appropriations are going to go, and then later on we find out that there's been a shift.

I mean, we are getting the message out to the public on where these funds are going. So it doesn't make us look good when we're not looped in and we don't have to approve it. The unelected board of regents are approving it, but they're unelected. We are the elected legislature. And so, again, closing in on that loophole, I I think it would just make the communication clearer.

No?

And to your point, I think, we can do a better job in in working with the chair to provide a lot more, the the kind of detail that you want with the with the information that we're providing with regards to expenditures, and we can continue to do that. Whether or not that requires a bill to actually execute on is another discussion. But the way that this particular bill is written, I I just don't know if it it want it accomplishes what you want.

And, you know, this is something that we could work together on, chair, and you have, you know, you have my commitment in terms of, like, providing you with the information.

Do you agree though that some sort of legislation does need to be put in place so it takes the guesswork out of it?

I I'm I'm not sure about that. I mean, I think the the detail and the amount of information in terms of what we provide. Because the RIM budget, if you look at it, it's deferred maintenance. And, you know, it's not it's no secret that we would need just a $100,000,000 a year just to kinda keep up with our deferred maintenance, but we never get a $100,000,000.

So the detail of, like, how projects move on I mean, you may have something that's on the on the deferred maintenance list.

Like, say, for example, an h v HVAC equipment that's okay. That's slated to be repaired in that schedule, like, next year, but then it breaks this year. So now all of a sudden, it has to move up on the priority list because that it's just the nature of the deferred maintenance.

Yeah. But it's still in deferred maintenance. It's not c I it's not gonna be in the CIP. You're not robbing from CIP to pay for deferred, but yet you're robbing deferred to pay for overruns

And I think that's where we want planning. We want to create the the granularity as well as the the detailed information so that you know how we are spending our money on the RIM budget going forward.

Yeah. And I think that we did bring this up during the WAM info briefing is that, the proactive approach to to start these these improvements and these repairs before our buildings are falling apart and we're having to vacate and we're having to pay for other housing. I mean, the maintenance of it really has to start being more of a priority so we don't find ourselves in this situation over and over again. And then you folks are asking for a 100,000,000 here, 100,000,000 there. So It's

a big hole we're in right now. And and it's it's we're it's it's gonna take a lot in order to dig out. And we're having continued conversations about how we do fund, you know, our ongoing capital improvement projects and what kind of support we can get from from from the state, what we can handle internally. But these are all kind of part of like, kind of a larger overall strategy in in managing our property plant and equipment.

Are you evaluating these overruns and these delays as to what is you know?

It can yeah. I've only been here for two months.

Well, yeah. But people behind you or people back managing, you know, vice president Govell has been there a long time. Her staff has been there a long time. We're the border regions have been there. I mean, we we're looking at Band Aids.

We need to get to the bottom of the problem Yep. That's happening.

And and president is is really good at making us very accountable for that, actually.

Well, again, I do I I understand your concern, and it is we've talked about this. These things cannot be kicked down the road because they're hard to solve. Right? We have to tackle them, and we have to do it in a really meaningful way. So I I appreciate the point, and I'm learning along with you and listening and whatnot.

And these are things we need to take back and have conversations about. I hear that you're thinking how this is being allocated is not how it's being spent. If that's the case, then we have our own work to do to get this done.

And it's not a new it's not new. And, you know, you've inherited this. These are issues we have talked about in the past, which is why it's frustrating for us and Understood. You know, trying to give you the leeway to to make some of these improvements.

And that's why sometimes it's not happening fast enough because we've been here for for so long, fighting these issues and trying to get the university to be responsible, for this. And and, you know, there in my frustration, I see you wanting to grab that.

So I guess going back to to my fundamental questions, I guess today is, what is your policy on this? Like, are are is moving forward, is your policy going to be that you cannot use RIM funding for cost overruns, or are you still open to that? And I think that's that's the bottom line is if you have a big backlog, we need to know if this the backlog you're gonna take care of or, you know, what what what is the strategy, I suppose?

I hear there's a you know, you have concerns with the bill, but I think we need to know what are you thinking. Right?

Because do we need the bill, or are you gonna actually take care of this? And

I mean, Senator, from my perspective, just candidly, I would never answer that question definitively without speaking with the people who are the experts on it. Right? And I think I would always ask you for more flexibility, not less, with a trust that has been earned about where it should be spent.

But to the extent that we are spending money in a way that even I I don't think it is deceptive, but feels deceptive to this body, that is not in our interest any more than it's in yours. So we need to go back and have this conversation.

Okay. So the conversation hasn't been had then?

This particular I mean, my my understanding and in every other university I've been in has been the flexibility of the team to identify the highest priority of need for that type of lump fund funding. That's pretty typical.

But I but I think it's it's it's a statement of values. Right? Because is is the statement of value that you're gonna actually do the the backlog of r and m. Right? Or are you focusing on these only the new projects?

Right? The reason I can't give you a definitive answer is because it's in motion. Yeah. Right? We're in the middle of some of these new projects.

And I get it, but you're coming into a new fiscal year. You're gonna get more money. Right? And and I think what it you know, I think it'd be helpful for us to know what you're thinking. Because if absent of that understanding, I think we're we're just probably just gonna move the bill along because we don't have that understanding.

So I

Your your understanding is my understanding. The priority is the buildings that we have on campus. Now some of those, it is much more efficient to create a new building than it is to try and renovate it. So the it's a it's a moving target, but we cannot my focus is not and will not be to create shiny new things for the campus.

Right?

It's to understand what's the usability of what we have and how do we raise it to a level that we're proud of that's sitting on campus.

Because, I mean, candidly, we all know there are buildings and infrastructure that we have that are not something that makes us feel good about, and we that's a billion dollars in arrears. And that that's gonna take time, and we are absolutely committed to that over new construction with the exception that where the new construction is more economically viable than the renovation. That is the approach we are taking.

But if you you know, we what we can do is go back and talk about the policy as it's being articulated here, which I think is a little different than what the bill is saying. Correct.

Correct. So Okay. Thank you, chair.

So the new construction, which is what if it's warranted and when it's warranted, then you would come into the legislature and get money for that specific. And so that that and that's the process. So otherwise, if it's not the case, then we don't give you CIP. We're just gonna give you a lump sum, and then you decide whether you're gonna use it for new, whether you're gonna use it for repair and maintenance, but that's not the process.

The process is you come in, you tell us what you wanna build, what's new, how much it's gonna cost, we give you the budget, then you go out, and then you do that.

Right? But then then you start to take it out on rim. So that that that has to change. Okay. Can I get the board of regent chair up?

So has the board even approached approached this issue? Have you folks even looked into some of the cost overruns and delays in some of the CIP and and asked the questions? Why is this happening?

We've we've discussed, yes, we've discussed. And what we're looking at is, we're we're gonna look at our governance and see if the CIP should right right now, we have too much going through our institutional success committee, and we might need to split some things off because you've got, say, like, the budget, building and maintenance, CIP, everything all in one committee that is I mean, there are times that we rush through it, and that's where the deepest conversations are in those committees.

And we are we have discussed looking at through our governance committee, what should be split out because this committee structure we put into place

Not that long.

Like, three years ago. And we had a lot lot of committees. And there's that one committee has just too much.

It's just like that one vice president has just too much. That seems to be the the the

And the system thread. The system restructuring

Should help.

Right.

We are reporting on every one of those things quarterly. I mean, they do get regular updates, but I think what the board chair feels and I feel is there's not sufficient time to dig into why and what type of oversight may or may not be occurring as part of that.

And we've also discussed, the actual report where it just shows us the update with more detail.

So, you know, I'm not gonna try to tell you folks how to how to break your committees up or what you're gonna name them, but it is very difficult for the public when they see committee on student success. What does that mean? What does that include? You know, you don't know budget, you don't know if it's it's it's very difficult.

So some of these really nice terms that you folks have named your committees may sound good, but for the general public, even for myself, I have no clue what's in student success.

Could be everything. Right? The whole whole intent of the university is student success. But yeah. So I was not aware that CIP is under citizen.

So maybe if the public had a better idea of what some of these committees actually Yeah. Have oversight of, it would be better because yeah. So maybe you guys need to talk about that because certainly, I think that change is making everybody more confused as to where the responsibilities are and who's doing what as far as committees. Yeah. And I understand combining it.

We combined lower ed and higher ed. So, you know, I mean Okay. So we're we're we're not arguing that. But, certainly, I think that the board needs to really look at some of these areas in which yeah. You know?

Should the vice president have that many positions? And I know you defer it to the president, but I think the board needs to weigh in on some of this because it shouldn't be the legislature. And, again, if you folks are doing it, then we're not gonna do it. I don't wanna do it. I don't wanna be here and ask these questions.

That's your guys' job. But when you don't do it, then we do it. And then if you're not gonna do it responsibly, then guess what? We're gonna pass a bill. That's just the nature of it.

Right? So a lot of times when we introduce measures, it's kind of like a message. And if the message is heard, then maybe the bill doesn't get passed. Message not heard, then the bill, if they don't pass this year, may pass this year. You know?

And and and it's really troubling. Last last year, was it the year before, where we had a compromise with the administration on a certain bill and did certain things. Then they went and lobbied the governor to veto the measure, which to me was very disingenuous and what why we have this distrust between the legislature and and the administration. So we welcome the new leadership that hopefully we won't have that kind of situation again.

Understood.

Any more questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're probably gonna sit there, President, I'll stay.

SB 3229. This is on Donors Foundation. Foundation. Yeah. Authorizes the University of Hawaii use of University of Hawaii tuition and special fees fund to conduct donor evaluations. Requires a related report to the legislature to include any donor evaluations conducted using monies from the fund.

And so, President, you're up. Or Luis.

We stand on our testimony in support of this bill. We welcome the accountability. We had already begun to discuss how to do this type of donor assessment, probably using a third party to come in and do some surveys and focus groups. So this is most welcome.

Okay. I hope it's not gonna, you know, when I hear consultants, I'm like, okay, more more funds.

You don't want the same people.

Yes. No. That's true. So I'm just kind of, you know, the balance.

Perfect consultant use in this case.

Okay. Tim Dolan.

Thank you, Chair. As echoed by President Hensel, we stand by our submitted comments on SB 3229. We welcome any suggestions for improving our operations and enhancing donor relations, and therefore we have no objections to the bill. Okay.

Good. Thank you. We had one Leilani Dimelo individual in opposition. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? If not, members, any questions?

Questions? Okay, very good. Thank you. Moving on to the next one. SB 2659.

This measure, Board of Regents, would prohibit active employees of the University of Hawaii or RCUH from serving on the Board of Regents. And we have Yvonne Lau and then Scott Collins from HGEA in opposition. I think that's all. Anyone else wishing to testify on SB 2659? I was going to call you anyway. So, good mental telepathy.

Chair, committee members, Gabriel Lee, chair of the Board of Regents, but speaking as an individual since the Board of Regents meets next week to decide on bills. For this bill, I recommend that an exception be made for student regents that work part time, as well as full-time professionals, say, the doctors or attorneys that are part-time faculty at, say, JABSOM or Richardson. Both of these would increase the pool of candidates. Thank you.

Okay. Members, questions? Wait. Don't go. Good question. Question. Don't go. Yeah. So, as far as possibility of conflicts, you don't think that just because they're part time that the lessons that?

Well, we've had it, if the regent feels that there is a conflict, that they excuse themselves from it.

But we haven't seen that in the case of some of the members that are actually employed by the university that are sitting on the board. No.

We've had incidents where people have left the room on certain conversations.

Okay. One comes to mind that that person didn't recuse himself. So, but, yeah, I guess it's a matter of wanting to try. You know, it's like the Board of Education wants a teacher on, or DOE wants a teacher, or HSTA wants a teacher on the Board of Education.

You know, it's just that there's a, and then again, there's no guarantee on how that person is going to interact, but it's to keep it so that, you know, retired teachers, retired professors, students that then decide they want to stop employment, want to be on. I mean, there are a lot of opportunities there.

So, yeah. And then for the regents, I know that they do look through the agenda, and they take the advice of counsel if they should also abstain from any of the parts of the meeting. Okay.

Thank you. Members, any questions? No. Okay. The next item on the agenda, I think is done.

Thank you guys. We shall shift over Senate bill 3325. This is on the relating to public school Medicaid reimbursements, requires Department of Education to establish an updated plan for maximizing Medicaid reimbursements for administrative and support services provided to students with special needs. Requires annual reports to the legislature. First up is Keith Ayashi for DOE.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the board. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. The department supports, Senate Bill 3,352. We do agree that transparent, accountability is warranted at this time, and, we strongly support this measure. We've put one amendment in our testimony that would make for more, seamless reporting.

Okay. Thank you. K. Johnny May Perry, individual, also in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure?

If not, members questions? So I guess, Heidi, if you can come back. So how long how how soon you think that this plan will come to fruition? Okay.

We we will it will come to you as the bill requested twenty days before next legislative session. If we get it earlier, if you want it earlier, we will give it to you. Okay. I I would like to clarify in our amendment, which was B, the bill asked for the number of eligible administrative and support services provided classified by complex area.

We can give, in the report the direct services for each complex area, but we cannot give the administrative numbers because it's lumped all in one bucket.

But if you wanted direct services, we could leave that in. But the administrative services, which are all the paperwork that or the reimbursement for any activity that's done to make sure that service gets delivered, that is in one bucket, and we wouldn't be able to separate that by complex area or service delivered.

Okay. And the intent is to ask for reimbursement, not just for a one portion that you folks are asking for now Correct. On the nurse's side. Right? It's across the board.

We wanna go across the board. We will start out because our nurses are contracted, and that that's our starting point for starting up reimbursement services again.

Okay. Members, any questions? Thank you. Thank you. SB 3232, relating to universal school meals, establishes the universal school meals special fund to accept deposits of the Medicaid reimbursement received by the Department of Education.

Great. Hayashi, DOE, or?

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Brian Hallett, Assistant Superintendent for Fiscal Services, testifying on behalf of the department. The department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. But I would summarize just to say their support for the intent of universal meals. There's just some technical issues with Nexus and jeopardizing the current use of those Medicaid dollars.

Okay. Thank you. HSTA here. Lauren Zirbel on Zoom.

No one present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. We have Brandon Kennard in support and Johnny May Perry also in support. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Okay, hearing none, questions members? Brian, I have a question.

Okay, so if I read your testimony correctly, you mentioned that the cost for the program. Where is that? Hartman agrees with the reporting provision of the bill clarifying the lender requesting the bill. Sure. No. That's not it. Where is it?

Sorry. I'm looking at the wrong Okay. Well, why don't I just ask this? So what is the cost to run this run run the program?

The reimbursements would then pay for.

I think the revenues are used both to maintain the infrastructure, the staffing, in order to do the claiming and and support for the processing of that, but as well as to provide capital to to churn through. We I think we believe we have to spend money in order to bring the money back in. Any excess funds historically we've been using to assist with special ed related expenses. Historically, that's that's been in the area of skilled nursing services.

So the exact number on on what it costs to to maintain the program, I would have to get back to you on.

Okay. But in light of the fact that we haven't been getting the full reimbursements because we've only done the nursing, and the fact that last year or this past year, we haven't even collected anything. We've gotten some direct services. So how are we paying for the how are we paying for the, sir for the program, and what is that cost?

There's there's a current carryover balance in this fund, and this is thanks in part to we had 2,300,000 in revenue in '22, 6,400,000 in '23, 9,400,000 in '24, and $22,600,000 in '25. So because of that historic revenues, that's how we've been able to to weather so far, the the lack of revenue.

So we could actually take portions of of whatever reimbursements because, obviously, when we go for the full the the full pie, then we will get a lot more money coming in.

I think that's what this bill is contemplating, but I but I I think the way I read it is it's all of the revenues.

Right. But as you know, we can amend measures. But yeah.

And and it's a lot of use for universal meals. But as I mentioned, we have been using it for to offset what we would otherwise require general fund support for in our special education area. And and it's been a a good buffer in terms of shortfalls. So we were running a shortfall in skilled nursing, for example, for for a couple of years. Eventually, the legislature was able to come through and and assist us with with additional general funds.

So it's a mechanism that it's it's worked. It's a mechanism that currently has uncertainty in future revenues. So just at this point in time, this this may not be the best way to fund universal meals is is really what we're we're testifying on.

So how would you how would you pay for universal meals?

Oh, boy. Well, I think, you know, the food service program, when when it's not when it requires subsidies to operate, the the source we look to is the state general funds for for support. Currently, we have a $74,000,000 general fund appropriation to to support that program, and I would expect that additional assistance would be needed from the state side, and and that's estimated about 16 to 26,000,000.

Don't have that money, then that well, I guess they were looking at how do we how do we fund some of these programs that the community believes is needed, that the schools need? How do we get that monies to the schools?

I suspect that's part of the motivation for for looking at this bill. I mean, public education, unfortunately, is not generally a money making endeavor, especially at the K to 12 level. But this is this is a creative idea.

So in the areas that we've been leaving on the table, millions of dollars that have not been asked for. And hopefully now with the plan, now we focused on it that, you know, some states have done as much as $40,000,000 and I don't know if we're gonna get that kind of lump sum, but, certainly, even a fraction of that is a lot more than what you're getting now to run the programs and you're sitting on some, excess funds.

And how do we get those funds into the classrooms and, to the schools? And and that's what that where the spell is coming from. Right?

I mean, this is one idea. It doesn't have to be meals. It could be could be other things. You know? Could be teacher pay.

Could be other kinds of things.

Yeah. And certainly with anything you get reimbursed for, the the nature is you're spending money to make money. Exactly. That's but, yes, we we hear you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? If not? Okay.

Next item. Senate Senate Bill 2,551 requires a teacher education standards board to develop an alternate pathway for a visiting internet international educator, permit aligned to the duration of the educator's j one visa program. I just wanna note that Senate Bill 2551 and Senate Bill 2875 are the exact same measures. That's how important we thought this measure is. So we have two bills put on the agenda at the same time, but it is the exact same bill.

So I will take the testifiers for both measures, as, as I called you. So, testifying for Senate Bill 2551 and for Senate bill 2875. So first up is Amy Altayani. Amy testifying for legal clinic.

Aloha. Thank thank you very much for this opportunity. I stand by my testimony. I believe that there is a need to address teacher shortages, and this opportunity and resources are are valuable. And from my experience and and con contacts in the community, I've been told it's a very good program, and I support it.

K. Thank you. Let's testify. Douglas Boyer, also on Zoom.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Doug Boyer, and I am the principal of Lanai High and Elementary School, and I strongly support both of these bills as they're being combined. On Lanai, j one b the teachers filled 21 of our 62 teaching positions. Without them, we would struggle to staff classrooms and maintain instructional continuity.

Nearly half of our students, 49%, which is about 306 children identify as Filipino. Many of our j one teachers share linguistic, cultural, regional, and family ties with our community. Their ability to communicate with parents in their native language strengthens trust, deepens engagement, and builds authentic school home partnerships that directly support student success. However, as we know, Hawaii does not recognize foreign teaching licenses or reciprocity and requires additional costs and time sensitive exams.

These are times that there are times that teachers cannot complete the full licensure within the three year period.

To put this into the and and expand for their two year extension. To put this in perspective, consider professor John Hattie from Australia and New Zealand, the internationally recognized educator, former teacher, minister, immunology professor who synthesized over 1,000 meta analysis on student achievement.

Okay. Doug, I don't mean to interrupt you, but your time is up and we have a full house of other bills we have to take them. So, if we would might have questions for you. So, thank you. We have next up Keith Hayashi for DOE.

Good afternoon, Chair Kim, Vice Chair Kidani, members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. We stand in support of this bill and are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Mitzie Higa for Hawaii Teachers Standard Board.

Sorry. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Mitzie Higa speaking on behalf of the Hawaii teacher standards board. We stand in opposition to both of these bills. We can already the board can already do this, and we do. We license and we permit j one teachers all the time. So this is putting it into law is unnecessary, and that's, what the board has decided.

They have they can actually bring this idea up, and they have in the past, but they have not, they they didn't feel a need to enact it. Anyone from anywhere can get a license or permit as long as they meet the criteria. And we already have people in our state that are j one visa holders that do have permit or license. The problem being that some of them were just looking at the list, because we were asked to look.

And we looked at the list, and there's a secondary mathematics teacher teaching second grade, and and there's teachers for secondary math or English teaching special ed.

That's a problem. So that's something we're looking in, but it's not our decision because by law, emergency hire permit, they can be the DOE can hire them and put them there. But, that's concerning for us because we're about high quality education, and that's the vision and mission of the Hawaii teacher standards board.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I'll be call you back for questions. Okay. Christina Sablan in support, testifying for the legal clinic. Not here. Okay, and we have one, two, three others that have, signed up.

One oppose and two in support. Support. They're not here to testify. Anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Okay.

If not, Mitzie, you wanna come back up? Members, any questions? No? Okay. So if this bill is not needed, then why why do we have why do you think these bills have been introduced?

I don't know. I mean, honestly, maybe because they're not aware that it's already available and already happening and the board already has that authority, perhaps. There is a teacher shortage, and we are concerned with that, and we have been working on apprenticeship and writing grants and everything trying to get our grow our own that Kidani started out in on the West Side.

We're still trying to grow that still, and we're trying to actually fund it because we found one of the problems was that these teachers, during student teaching, they weren't paid. So but through the apprenticeship program, they have to be paid.

They can't leave the classroom, and that was why we went for that because we realized that was a burden to them and a barrier. So we are trying, but just in different ways.

Okay. Well, it's just that, you know, it's come to our attention, and, obviously, that's why the bills are here, that there seem to be a lot of obstacles. And so we're trying to, you know, work around those. And a lot of times we end up having to do legislation because one, sometimes that just having a bill introduced will bring up the discussion and maybe change can happen. Other times it is because people are frustrated because things aren't moving the way it should be.

So then we have more than one. As you can see, there's two, and I know there were other bills that was introduced like this. You know, we had a situation where we we had a complaint that, this teacher has been teaching and then went to get her her credentials, or her license. And then, she was denied, and the and the remedy was that she had to repeat her student teaching, but she's already teaching. And she's been teaching.

So to me, and then she'd have to pay more money to get that student teaching. And so sometimes I guess, what I'm trying to say is that the board, we need to be able to get the board to look at some of these cases and and be flexible because we do have a teacher shortage. And we do need good teachers in the classrooms.

And when they cannot get their license after jumping through all the hoops, then it it's it's even more exacerbated for them as well as for for the students. Yes. Senator Kidani.

So is there an appeal process for these teachers?

There is.

And how how many of them go through the appeal process and when?

That's a good question. I haven't looked, but there have been a few that have been they present their case to the board, and they do let them have an additional year. But there is a there is a way that they can do it if they meet the criteria.

So so does HSTA, assist these teachers to help?

I'm with HTSB now, but HSTA does try to assist. Yeah.

Is there is there an agency that can help them through the process? Because some of these teachers are not citizens And they want to become citizens and stay here and teach. And we God help us know that we need the teachers.

I agree. And so we have been as a board, we have been helping them by telling them early on, like, what they need to do, giving them links to the approved programs if they need them. But most of them from other countries don't need them. They just need to take the Praxis. We recently saw an email that DOE is offering them steady help, which I think is ideal, that they get this steady help.

And some have even taken their praxis before, like, at least one of the praxis before they came to The US. And that was a good thing. So they need more support and guidance. Some principals have been really good about, paying for the practice once they pass as well. I think they use title two funds for that.

At least that's what my principal used to do.

Senator Hashimoto.

So I'm confused. You're you're saying that some principals are passing are paying for it. But when your executive director was here, she said everyone gets it. So what's the truth?

You would have to ask the DOE because I don't know what your current rules are.

No no. Your executive director is the one who said that.

I don't know.

Maybe you should go back and you should find out what she meant by that because

Maybe she knows more than I do about that particular subject. I'm not sure. I'm not sure why.

Go back to the tape and go watch, she said that they pay, right, for and if you wanna take the proxies, the DOE reimburses now. Blanket statement. And now you're saying it's only certain schools?

That's my personal knowledge. I don't know.

The whole issue is you can we came we had this bill last year. The year later, I'm still trying to grasp what did HTSB do in that one year period to make any progress in this space? Any progress.

For the teacher shortage, we've been working on their apprenticeship. Specifically for the children we've been buying.

I've heard in the teacher apprenticeship program that you guys can't even spend on the money.

We're not allowed to spend on it until consultant confer is finished, which it's finally finished, but now we wait for the unions to sign.

Okay. And so so when are you gonna start spending down that money?

Once they sign.

Okay. So so my point is, what have you done in the last year that's tangible

Believe me. We've been working on that a lot.

That is part of what I have to do. Nothing if you've done nothing though, Because if if you're just waiting, that does not help us in this situation. That so that's why I'm just if your board doesn't understand why it's important, I don't see why they're not here to understand what our questioning is, what our concerns are, reading the testimony.

Just so you know, they did set up an appointment with your office.

I understand. Right? It's about time because because met with

Donna Mercado Kim as well.

They're they're setting it up because they want confirmation before this committee.

No. They wanna

There's no one who's been proactive about the j one program.

That's right they have tocome before this committee for confirmation. And now we're gonna ask the tough questions of why they didn't do anything over the last year. Right? So I I just want tangible information. Right?

They wanna make sure they understand everything and their full time teachers

You guys put a moratorium in place on new teacher training programs. You're relying on the DOE, right, to to do the training, to to study for the practice. Why didn't HTSB do something like that? If you feel it is so important, why didn't you start doing some type of pathway training to help these individuals who wanna get their practice, you know, help them? Help them other than just guiding them.

Why don't you set up some type of class for them? Right? Be proactive. That's all we're asking you to be is be proactive. Be proactive. Thank you, chair.

You're welcome. Any others? If not, thank you very much. Thank you. Great.