Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello, ... And good afternoon all for joining today's AEN GBO deferred hearing. It's Tuesday, February 17th, and we're convened in room 225 and video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday, February 18th at 3:05pm during AAN's time slot. And a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website. So we have just one measure. This is Decision making on SB2094.

Requiring state agencies that monitor environmental toxins and pollutants to establish environmental action levels, or EALs to ensure the preservation of a safe environment. Prohibits modifications to EALs unless certain procedural requirements are met. Chair?

What's your recommendation, sir.

So, recommendation on this measure. We'd like to note that the cost to develop a government secure portal website would be approximately $125,000. Secondly, the estimate cost for creating and hosting webinars on potential EALs would be approximately $15,000. And we'd like to insert these amounts into the Committee report for consideration as well as pass with an amendment to defect the date to July 1, 2050.

Sounds good. Appreciate you making those amendments.

Okay, any discussion? Chair votes aye.

Just a minute Chair, we're catching up the paperwork. On Senate Bill 2094 passing with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite is excused. Senator Rhoads, excused. Senator Awa. Jury of three in favor. Motion is adopted.

Thank you, Members. Okay, Committee on Government Operations. Same recommendation, 2094 Senate Draft 1. I vote yes.

Vice Chair, both sides. Senator Hashimoto, excused. Senator Moriwaki, excused. Senator Awa. Measure is adopted.

Okay, thank you.

And that ends the three o' clock joint.

Okay, good afternoon. We're reconvening today, Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 3:00pm for decision making on measures previously heard. On February 3rd, 5th and 10th, we are convened in Conference Room 225. Meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. Decision making meeting. Unlikely event we have to abruptly end this decision making hearing due to technical difficulties.

The Committee will reconvene, or any - discuss any outstanding business at 3pm Thursday, February 19, 2026 in room 225 with a public notice posted on the legislature's website. First up, we had Senate Bill 2862. I'd like to keep this going for further conversation, recognize the concerns. And so with that, we're going to amend the preamble to make it broader to cover multiple positions. We're going to make it inclusive of anyone appointed under HRS 346-381.5 to be confirmable.

And then we're going to make tech amendments, non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency, including clarifying that the submission of GMs under Section 3a applies to gubernatorial appointees who are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent and are still serving in the appointed position.

And because of these changes, we're going to also add a defective date of 2525. That's all we have. Members that are present, questions or comments? If not, recommendation on 2062 is as Senate Draft 1 with noting the excuse of my Vice Chair. Are there any other WRs or Nos. Seeing none. This recommendation was adopted.

Give me a second. I'm having to multitask a little here. Okay, next up, 2781 relating to lei. We want to keep this one going too. We heard all the concerns that were raised and so given that, we're going to do a Senate Draft 1 and we're going to create a working group to identify, gather and report on any existing studies or assessments or data by DAB or University of Hawaii that have already examined the following: number distribution of flower farms in Hawaii, type and volume of lei materials currently produced locally, and the capacity of local floriculture to meet the public.

The expected public demand as well as their ongoing private demand, require the working group to conduct a statewide study of Hawaii's flower culture industry looking at production capacity and barriers faced by local growers, and the working group will be comprised of the Chair of DAB, the President of the Farm Bureau or the representative, President of the Hawaii Floricultural Nursery Association or their representative, the CTAHR Dean or their representative,

one Member from the florist industry named by the Speaker of the House, and one Member of the lei maker producer industry named by the Senate President. Also going to add technical, non substantive amendments for clarity and consistency. Effective date of 2525. Members are there any other questions or comments. If not recommendation is a Senate Draft 1. I vote yes.

Noting the excuse of my Vice Chair and Senator Hashimoto, Senator Moriwaki. Senator Awa. And that concludes that one. Okay. Okay. Next up, 3015. We're going to keep this one moving as well.

What we're going to do to address the concerns and make it universal for everybody is we're going to adopt California's definition of PII, which has been sorely needed in the state. Among all these different branches. We're going to make it applicable to government agency branches and political subdivisions to remove and disallow PII under the new definition.

Create a private cause of action if PII is identified and not removed. Report to the Legislature on compliance of the Act. We're going to address the preamble to address current technology and issues with government entities as trusted sources in relation to PII.

We're going to also make several technical non substantive amendments for clarity and consistency and because of the changes we're going to add a defective date of 2525. Members, questions? Comments? If not, 3015 Senate Draft 1. Noting the excuse of my Vice Chair Senator Gabbard. Are there any WRs or Nos. No for Senator Awa. Okay. Anybody else? Seeing none, that one has been adopted. Okay.

Relating to procurement. Next one up is 3230. And this Bill here - what we're going to do is we're going to remove the category statutory prohibition for procurements services for project management through non governmental third party contracts and add language that oversight of third party contracts remain state agencies inherently governmental responsibility. Reference to Procurement Circular Number 2014-14. This is the amendments that were requested by the State Procurement Office in moving this Bill forward. And a Defective date of 2525

Members, questions? Comments? If not, recommendation is a Senate Draft 1. Noting the excuse of Vice Chair Gabbard. Are there any WRs or Nos? Seeing none, that recommendation has been adopted and I believe that takes it to the end of this decision making agenda. We will take a short recess before beginning our joint GBO Health and Human Service agenda. All right, welcome back.

Welcome Back. Now convening The Joint Committee GVO Health and Human Services 3:05pm Agenda Convene Conference Room 225, 2 bills on the agenda first of 2932 relating to State facilities requires all state building construction beginning beginning on or after 7/1/2026 to provide at least one universal changing accommodation in each public restroom. First up we have Daggs

Chairman ... Comments

thank you so much. We appreciate those comments. Disability and Communication Access Board

I will. Stand on our testimony in support.

Thank you. Appreciate that. We have Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Chairs Committee Vanders Dane Chipartola is Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We stand in strong support. I first want to begin by thanking you so much for hearing this measure. This measure came from our Maui Disability Forum. They are very excited about getting this heard.

We want to start somewhere in the state buildings is what they requested. I apologize for my testimony to ask to include Counties. We can't. It's a state building. I apologize for messing that up. And we also are in agreement with DCAB's request for changing. There's a little blurb down there at the bottom that we are agreement with. Thank you so much.

Okay, sounds good. I thought that was in there already. Feasible is already in the Bill. Okay, well, let's continue.

The phrase technically infeasible.

Oh, got it. Okay. Got. I see what you're saying. Okay. Anyway, sorry we took a little side trick there. Next up is Civil Rights Commission. oh, you already went. Next up is individuals, a lot of them. Annette Tashiro, Jari Sugana, Desiree Taku, Veronica Moore, Leilani Kaliavao. They are all in support. We have Goodwill Hawaii.

They have written in support. We also have Austin Kaneshiro and Iris Zao, both individuals in support of the measure. That is all we have on that measure. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Yeah, come on.

I think. I'm pretty sure that I sent it on behalf of the Disability Rights center for both bills.

Oh, I apologize. Yes, you were right there.

Okay. Familiarity problem. Well, I don't think I need to make a long speech on these bills. You folks are very familiar with the issue, particularly the chairs, and I think the Committee is. So my testimony goes for both bills. We're in support.

I think that what Daintree is suggesting and what DeCamp is suggesting, I think kind of cleans up the language there might be some question about. I see Daggs wants to make it design versus construction, and that's a call for you folks. But basically, conceptually, this is a really good idea.

We've been advocating on this for several years, and I think both of you have been supportive before, so we appreciate that.

Great. Thank you so much. Anybody else seeing None. Questions of the testifiers? Yes.

Get off. Just real quickly. You mentioned that you're responsible just for DAGS managed buildings. Do you think you can make the language clearer, that it really does apply only to, I guess, DAGS owns or managed buildings or something like that? So that's clear in the law that that's what you're going to be responsible for.

Can you give us language that we could put in that would, you know, specify that it's just what you're responsible for?

Yeah. So thank you very much for that question. Just so you know, I want to just start by saying that we support the intent of this Bill. We think this is a good direction for the state to move in. And so we're not in Any way opposing what's presented here.

We just are asking that while DAGS does manage a number of buildings, it doesn't manage all buildings. And so we want to make sure that if there's signage that's required as part of this process, that those buildings that are non Dags managed are required to put up their own signage.

And so we did in fact include some language in our testimony, but we would be happy to clean it up if you need us to make it a little more.

I think so. Because do you know how many other buildings are managed by others in Dags?

So there's like something like 8,000 buildings throughout the state. Right. But are they. So we've got about 120 that are managed by Dags.

Yeah. So I think 120 is kind of more manageable than 8,000.

It is. And like I said, we have no problem with doing this in our facilities, but there's no way that we can mandate or, you know, do all 8,000, the other 7,000 something buildings. Right. That are out there.

So maybe you can give us some language, Chair. I think if we can confine it to what the state manages,

that's kind. Of what the intent is. And we're actually going to adopt the amendment. Your amendment as well as the amendments.

So does it stay.

It does. Danger. You didn't have any, did you?

No, she did.

Yeah. We're just going to take these two guys. Yeah. Make their amendment because she had them.

She does have.

No, she can't have the county.

No, but she has. She has the. It's not. It's one per building and not one on every floor or something like that.

That's the next Bill.

Oh, that's the next.

Yeah, that's the next building. Okay. Yeah. So those are the recommendations.

We're going to go with these two guys. Amendments and there's effectively. Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay. Make sure. Remember. All right. Anything else on this Bill? Seeing none, we're going to move on to the final one. 2268. Very similar, but they are different. I want to let you guys know that. So. So just so everybody's aware.

Let's see. First up, DAGs

Chair, we stand on our testimony providing comments.

Okay, thank you so much. We also have the AG's office.

My name is Charles Lee, Deputy Attorney General. I'll be submitted a written comments to iron on implementation issues. So I'll be.

Okay, Sounds good. Let's see. We have DCAB.

I will stand on our support.

Okay, sounds good. Next up, we have the LGBTQ Commission, they have Zoom. Are they here?

Not present. Chair not present.

They have submitted testimony in support. We also have State Council Developmental Disabilities.

Thank you. Chairs, Committee Members. Dane Chupartoldis Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Within our test testimony, we did highlight and request a couple of amendments that we felt would be a little bit more feasible to support the implementation. Although we really appreciate it to be on every floor.

But we felt like at least as a changing table, at least one in the building that would be a little bit more feasible to implement. So on the back of our Testimony on page two, we said on page two, line 15, delete. On each floor containing restrooms for public use, line 16, delete.

Each new establishment shall provide at a minimum and replace it with. Each new establishment shall provide at a minimum at least one universal changing accommodation within the building in a restroom for public use as follows on page three, lines 18 through 19, delete.

No reasonable physical option exists for providing universal changing accommodations and replace it with is technically infeasible as defined under the ada. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and support.

Okay, thank you so much. Next up, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission in support. Hawaii Disability Rights Senate. Okay, sounds good. Private work, Hawaii via Zoom.

I see. Hawaii Civil Rights Commission on the.

Not present. Chair not present.

Good afternoon chairs and Committee Members, Constance Jonas for the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We are in strong support and stand. On our right testimony. While this measure will create a new section in Chapter 489 and is outside of the HCRC jurisdiction, we believe that by ensuring access to safe universal changing. Accommodations in public spaces, individuals who need.

Help with self care can more freely partake in social interaction, connection and a. Sense of belonging in our communities. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify and support.

Okay, thank you. Sorry about missing you there. Let's see, we have private work, Hawaii. Okay. We have Hoku Pack. By the way, they're in support. Just so everybody knows, Hawaii women lawyers, they are in support. We have Alec Martinek, individual in support, Annette Toshiro, individual support and our friend Judith Clark on zoom. We see you, Judith. Go ahead.

Aloha, Chairs, Members of the committees. I am Judith Clark, a community advocate and the former chair of the Hawaii Children and Youth Summit, and I support this Bill. In 20172 women brought their babies to the Hawaii Children and Youth Summit at the State Capitol building.

A young parent who was a speaker at the summit came to me and asked where she could change her baby because there was no baby changing station in any of the women's restrooms. The adult volunteer provided us with a photo of herself kneeling on the floor of the bathroom in the Capitol to change her baby.

And I've included a copy of that photo in my testimony. Sharing this photo and information with legislators led to the installation of changing tables in men's and women's restrooms at the Capitol. Parents and children need and deserve appropriate and accessible facilities in public buildings.

They should not have to kneel on the floor to provide essential infant care and recognize that some parents and caregivers have disabilities that make this impossible. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much, Judith. We appreciate you coming on the zoom and testifying. We also have Jerry Sugano who they indicated they would be here. Okay. Written in support. Also Uday Finch, Desiree Takoub, Katarina Advanco and we also Veronica Moore and Leilani Kyla. Kyla Val. They are all in support.

We also have Riley Dettman for for Goodwill Hawaii in support and Austin Kaneshiro, individual in support. That's all we have on the measure. Is there anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none Members. Are there any questions?

Oh, I do. Just of Daintree. Real quick. You mentioned the definition of technically feasible infeasible under ADA. Can you give us the actual chapter and verse of ADA so that we can make sure we have the right.

Can I ask Brian from DCAB to help me with that? Because I got that language from him.

So ADA is pretty broad. So you know any.

Yes. Hi, Bryan, Mick here on behalf of the Disability and Communication Access Board. I thought you. The exact citation but the language and in our testimony on 2932 we included it.

Technically infeasible means something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load bearing Member that is an essential part of the structural frame or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.

So it's a fairly narrow definition that we think would avoid people trying to stretch some of the other terms that are in the bills and leading to disagreement.

Do you have that in your testimony?

Yes, that's in her testimony. Yeah. On the prior Bill.

On the prior Bill. Not on this one.

Yeah, I think that's. I think.

Yeah, we're gonna definitely do that on the prior one. But on this one here I think this is more getting into. Because this is in the different section of the HR.

Yeah, I think in DD Council's one, it's technically infeasible as Defined under the ADA.

So yeah, see there's. There's a difference.

Yeah.

So there is a definition section under the ADA accessibility guidelines. And that's my understanding is where the technically infeasible phrase is defined.

As long as we have some citation.

That's in your testimony. In the first toy. The first. Yeah. And this one, is it the same one? Yeah. He's speaking on the first Bill for it. She's speaking on the second. The same. Yeah.

As defined under the ADA, it is the same definition.

The difference would be the way the second one is, if they were to adjust the adas definition, they would automatically be referring to the ada. If you put it directly into the statute and they change and you want to match it, then you have to go back into the statute to update.

It, pull up ADA. There is a definition table and in the definition table, technically infeasible, it has the phrase technical. Technically infeasible.

We'll define it under definitions. With that. With that. Okay. So like you said, the changes just to be. We don't have to go back and.

Change word for word.

Word for word.

Okay, sounds. Sounds good. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not sure if this question can be to you guys, but I see that this is going to be beyond government buildings.

That was the first one.

Oh, that's the first one we saw the second second.

I'm going the second one now. 2268. Right. Drag this back. Technical infeasible. But yeah. This is the second one.

The first one's only for state facilities. We are going to make a prospective with DAGS's amendment and also put in the technically infeasible in respect to that from Cat. But this is technically infeasible being applied to discrimination. Right. Chapter. That's why they're two different bills. Despite the fact I thought too at first Glance .

looking at the 2268 says beyond government buildings and private sectors.

Yes. That's the reason why it's different. This goes beyond government buildings. Yes.

And 2268 allows for right of action. Okay.

Private cause of action which is in the other we passed too.

Yeah. Which the Attorney General wants.

I just figured sometimes small business is not going to be able to do some of this.

No, there are concerns. I mean with the second one for sure. Insofar as the impact of the private sector does. But you know that's. We're just looking at it from the government side. Okay.

They will end up closing it to public.

Well, I think that's where the technically feasible comes into play right there. Right.

And that's the reason why Daintree suggested instead of to only limit it to one per building.

Yeah, one per building.

So that it won't be instead of one per floor. To try to make. It as accommodating as possible.

Okay, good. Yep. Anybody else? You guys good? You? No. Okay, thank you again. Do you want to just roll into GM and we'll just check our vote now for.

And I have forum.

Oh, you do? Okay, so you both can do it. All right, well then we'll just go right into into it then. 29:2. We want to keep this conversation going. It is a different Bill. This is state facilities. We want to put the prospective amendments and other amendments offered by DAGS into the measure.

Also we want the amendments including the technically infeasible from DCAB in there and a defective date of 25. 2525 Members. Questions or comments on this measure if not the Senate draft one Noting the excuse.

I'm voting your vote.

OH, you are? Thanks. You're the man. Okay.

SB 2932 recommendation is passed with amendment. Chair votes aye. Vice chairs excused. I vote aye. ... recommendations adopted for HHS.

Same recommendation. Vice chair for the vote.

This is really confusing. Okay, noting the presence of all the Members except for Senator.... Is there any. Any wrs or no seeing none. Oh, and Kanuha too. I'm sorry. Any wrs or no seeing none recommendations adopted, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay. This is very strange. 2268, I believe what we're going to do on this one is we're going to take the recommended amendments of Ding Tea offered for the bill, which is the limiting it to the one per building, correct? And then the technically infeasible again, right?

And AG's proposed amendment.

Oh, and the AG's proposed amendments for implementation, right? Okay, so we good? And defect the date to 25/25.

Technical amendments.

And technical amendments for that clarity and style. Any questions or comments? If not, thank you, Vice Chair Pro Tem. I vote yes.

SB 2268: Chair's recommendation's to pass with amendments. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? With the excusal of Senator Gabbard, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you so much.

And same recommendation. Vice chair for the vote for--

Okay, noting the excuse of the members previously mentioned, are there any WRs or noes? Seeing none, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

So this concludes this hearing.

Welcome back. Now convening the Joint Committee for Government Operations, Public Safety, Military Affairs for our 3:30 p.m. agenda. We are convened in Conference Room 225. On this agenda, we are the lead on the first two items. We have Senate Bill 2882, relating to state buildings; require certain state buildings intended for use as emergency shelters constructed on or after July 1, 2027 be designed to withstand a cat 5 hurricane. First up, DAGS.

Chair, we stand on our written testimony, providing comments.

Okay, thank you so much. James Barros, HIEMA. Written in support. We have Department of Education. They have submitted comments. They here on-- no. We also have Dr. Kioni Dudley on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. And then several individuals: Sherry Pollock, Veronica Moore, Michael Plowman, and late from James Gower, all in support. That's all the testimony we received. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none, other questions of the members? I don't have any questions. Do you? No. Okay, we'll move on to the next one for which we're lead.

It is Senate Bill 3191 relating to Department of Water Safety and Drowning Prevention, establishes Department of Water Safety and Drowning Prevention and establishes the Director of said Department. First, up we have Allison Shaffers, individual

Not present on Zoom, Chair

Not present on Zoom. Okay. And then late from Ron Bregman and they're both in support. That's all we've received on 3191. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify, seeing that nobody's here, there's nobody to ask questions of. So I'll turn it over on the final bill to my co Chair.

Wow, that was pretty sweetie.

We knew quick.

Next, we have Senate Bill 2339. This was-- let's see. First up, we have Stefanie Sakamoto for Building Industry Association.

We stand on our testimony.

Okay. Next we have Richard--I'm sorry--Richmond Luzar in person testifying for Housing Hawaii's Future. Okay, if not, next we have IBEW Local Union 1186, Michael Pacheco, Kika Bukoski, Plumbers and Fitters UA Local 675. And, let's see. Last, Geena Thielen in person. Welcome.

Can I sit here?

Yes. Please.

Aloha, Chairs, members of the committee. My name is Geena Thielen. I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 2339. I currently work as a developer in the affordable housing sphere, primarily Bill 7, the City and County of Honolulu's program.

I've been a licensed general contractor for 30 years, and in my volunteer capacity, I serve as the chair of BIA's Codes Committee, I serve on the City and County of Honolulu Building Board of Appeals, and I am the vice president of the Hawaii State Habitat Association.

I'm a strong believer in affordable housing, as you can tell from this background, and building codes have become a very big priority for us. I believe this bill is very important because we have been rotating seats between two agencies that really look at different areas of the code.

BIA Hawaii's members are primarily focused on the IRC, or International Residential Code, which affects most of the single-family homeowners, and the GCA is focused more on industrial construction like IBC. So I think giving both organizations a seat is going to help bring a good perspective to the State Building Code Council. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that we have on our listing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2339? Okay. If not, we'll briefly recess and--

Yep, we'll just recess--

--proceed for the--

Welcome back, everybody. Okay, I just had to take a brief recess here, but given that we're back with decision making.

And so after talking to my illustrious co Chair about this measure and reviewing the testimony on the first measure 2887, the recommendation is that we're going to take the amendments offered by both DAGS and DOE and put a defective date of 2525 on there to discuss the changes that we're making to the bill further.

Members, any comments, questions? If not recommendation of Senate draft one. Note. Excuse me. No, 2882 is the bill we're voting on and the recommendation is that we pass with a Senate draft one, and noting the excuse of my vice chair of any WRs or noes? Seeing none, it has been adopted.

Okay. For PSM Committee, same recommendation. Okay. We will defer decision making until our program slots.

Sounds good. Sounds good. Next, we have 3191. Recommendation on this, to keep it going for further conversation. Is a Senate draft one and we're going to go ahead and make technical, non substantive amendments for the purpose of clarity and consistency and a defective date of 2525. Questions? Comments?

Oh, any funding will be noted in the Committee report and blanked out. Just make sure we're clear. Questions? Comments? If not noting the excuse of my vice chairs, any WRs or noes? Seeing none, recommendation has been adopted on this end.

Same recommendation for PSM Committee. And we will take our, I mean we will do our decision making during the time slot we have downstairs.

Okay. Next one, the final one was you.

Oh, that's right. Senate Bill 2339 relating to the State Building Code Council Chairs would like to recommend that we pass this bill with amendments and add two labor representatives to the Building Council in addition to separating the contractor representatives as requested in the bill and include a defective effective date just to continue the discussions.

We think that this will provide some additional balance and we look forward to seeing this bill move forward. Members, any questions? We will defer till our time slot.

Okay, sounds good. Members of GBO same recommendation Senate Draft one. Are there any questions? Comments if not. Noting the excused absence of my Vice Chairs. Any WRs or Noes? Seeing none. This recommendation has been adopted and I Believe.

Okay, I have one correction to my announcement. The deferral that we're making on the PSM items is till tomorrow afternoon at 3pm in conference room 016.

Welcome back, 03:45pm agenda, Government Operations 225. Thursday, February 19, 2026. First up, only Bill 3294 relating to wrongful imprisonment. We have first up, the Judiciary State of Hawaii. They have comments. AG's office.

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Puu. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Criminal Justice Division with the Department. We are the Department statewide prosecutors. We oppose this bill for various reasons, one being the automatic payment system that is being set up by it.

Basically there's going to be an automatic payment system that is set up before any legal determination has been made that establishes actual innocence. That means there has been no finding made that the person is actually innocent.

To the five days that's being permitted to allow the prosecutors to refile or repursue the trial is wholly insufficient to make a thoughtful determination to whether or not the case is viable for reprosecution based on what is left of the case. Sometimes these Rule 40 petitions are granted sometimes 20-30 years post conviction.

In the Alvin Jardine case that was, I want to say, 30 years after the fact. It's very difficult to put together a trial 30 years after it's done. Time is going to be needed to determine whether or not that's even possible. Whether or not the victim wants to proceed. Five days is wholly insufficient.

Meanwhile, those automatic payments are going to be doled out at taxpayer expense. Three, there's going to be no opportunity to recoup those monies if the 661 petition is subsequently denied because there is no finding of actual innocence on the part of this individual. That means these payments are going to be going out based on defects in the trial.

That is found by a court reviewing what happened at the trial. Whether or not jury instructions were proper. Whether or not improper arguments were made during the trial. Whether or not evidence might have been withheld. Whether or not new evidence was brought to light based on new technology that is now available this year that wasn't available in 1990.

This would warrant automatic payments under this system. Also, there's a potential constitutional violation where there is no appropriation for these funds having been made. We do oppose this bill. We'd ask that it be deferred.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, let's see. Next up we have Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Hayley Cheng. I'm the first deputy from the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in strong support of this measure and want to clarify a few things. This measure will apply to an incredibly small group of individuals.

This is very distinctual from somebody who has been detained, pretrial, has gone to trial, and has been found not guilty. That is not who this applies to. It applies to people who have, as the measure states, been wrongfully imprisoned and wrongfully imprisoned with a finding that the evidence supports innocence.

So we do disagree with what the Deputy Attorney General's testimony is, is that there is no findings. As the bill clearly states, the vacation of the conviction or reversal has to be supported and has to be done with this evidence supporting innocence.

One of the most inhumane and tragic things that can happen in our criminal system is that someone be wrongfully convicted and then wrongfully incarcerated for 5, 10, 20 plus years. Often these individuals, unless they have a strong support system, come out with nothing. And that can often be worse than incarceration itself.

With incarceration at a minimum, you have shelter, you have meals, you have maybe minimal medical assistance. But if you are released from custody after perhaps decades and you have no resources, no funds, not even the basic necessities, it can be worse than incarceration itself.

When these few individuals in our system are wrongfully convicted and there is evidence later supporting innocence, we believe very strongly that this is the minimum that the state can do to try to rectify the wrong that has been done to these individuals. So we stand in strong support. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be available for any questions.

Okay, thank you so much. Next up, we have Keith Regan, Comptroller.

We stand on our written testimony for this measure.

Okay, thank you so much. We have Gil Keith-Agaran, Takatani, Takitani Agaran Jorgensen & Wildman. They have written testimony in support. We have the law offices of Setsuko Regina Gormley. They have written testimony in support. We have numerous individuals. Lynn Akatsuka. Sorry if I butcher your name.

Virginia Tincher. John Kawamoto. Douglas Hagan. Thomas Graham. Paul Bernstein. Virginia Hench. Noel Morin. Dawn Dural. Ron Reilly, Gordon Cordeiro. They are all in support. Late from Sarah Cordeiro. She, that is in support. Gordon or Sarah? Gordon was supposed to be on Zoom. Are they on zoom?

They are present, Chair.

Okay, go ahead, Sarah. Go ahead, Gordon. You got your timers running.

You want Gordon? Okay. Senator McKelvey, Chairman, Senator Gabbard, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I truly wish I could be there in person, but I was not feeling well this weekend. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to speak. My name is Gordon Cordeiro.

I was released from prison February 21, 2025. I filed a Rule 40 petition. A hearing was held, evidence was presented. Prosecutor had the opportunity to respond and oppose the petition. Witnesses testify.

We just lost your audio, sir. Gordon, we lost your audio. We can't hear your testimony. You can't hear me either. I think the system has gone down. IT, can you hear me?

After my release.

Yeah, sure, we can hear you.

Are you there, there, Gordon?

Hello?

Yeah. Okay, go ahead and pick it up. We lost a good chunk of it, so why don't you just go ahead and recap real quickly, okay?

Okay. I was walked to the gate, the door was open and it was shut behind me. If I had not had my families and friends and attorneys waiting for me, what would I have done? Where would I have gone? What would I have eaten? Where would I have slept?

I didn't receive the small amount of money I earned while working in prison until three months after I was released. This bill is essential for anyone being released for actual innocence. When someone is released on parole, they have a case manager, they have a supervision, they have people helping them get settled in the community.

When someone is released because of actual innocence, they have nothing. No plan, no assistance, no safety net. When I went to prison, 94, we were carrying beepers. When I left, there were smartphones and smart TVs. Everything changed. I spent three decades in prison.

Last week at the house here and I heard the Attorney General's comments opposing the $5,000 advance payment. I disagree. It costs the state between 60 and 115,000 dollars a year to house someone. They will never get that money back. For somebody who is actually innocent and put in prison, the $5,000 is not a bonus. It's a bridge.

To help you get on your feet, to help you get moving. The original bill, 661 was a good bill. However, over time has been undermined by the Department of the Attorney General. They argue, they negotiate, they try to give you less money than you're deserved. Alvin Jardine died waiting to be paid when he got out of prison.

A judge has already ruled someone actually innocent. That should not trigger a negotiation. The burden should not be on the person to prove they were deserve compensation. The determination has already been made in court.

Okay, so the timer. The timers run out. Your timers run out. So I need you to summarize so we can move on the next testify.

I definitely support this bill and I hope you guys vote yes. Justice is not opening the gate and walking away. Justice is making it right. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you testifying. Gina, we see you. Go ahead. Your timer starts now.

Good afternoon. And I am a solo practitioner on Maui. I also am a volunteer attorney with the Hawaii Innocence Project. I do support this bill for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that it proposes replacing actual innocence with grounds consistent with innocence. I think that's extremely important.

As the Hawaii Supreme Court recognized in the Jardine case, the standard is nearly impossible to satisfy. Another reason is for the advanced compensation. Currently, you know, probationers have services, parolees have services, and yet the wrongfully convicted have zero services. As Gordon stated, they come out with nothing. Hawaii Innocence Project had to help Gordon.

His family also helped him, but we also had to help him along with Ian Schweitzer. We had to help Ian Schweitzer obtain a bank account or open a bank account and also get an ID. In Gordon's case, he had to use MCCC's address on his ID because he could not establish residency.

So we do need services, advance payment compensation for the wrongfully convicted, because again, they are released with nothing. Once they walk out that door, they have nothing. No housing, no ID, no employment. They don't have Social Security, they don't have a job. They don't, in some cases, they don't have clothes. They have nothing.

And so another important reason is that it shifts the burden to the state. The bill streamlines the procedure and shifting of the burden of proof to the state to show why a person shouldn't be compensated if their conviction was vacated on grounds consistent with innocence. What we have to remember is that these are our people.

These people, we have to take care of them. The state did them wrong. They spent, in Gordon's case, He did over 30 years. Alvin Jardine did over 20 years. Ian Schweitzer did over 23 years. Roynes Dural did over eight and a half years. But these are everyday people that this can happen to anybody.

It can happen to our family Members. It can happen to our friends. And we have to remember that. And we need to take care of our people so they're not just left destitute or in Alvin Jardine's case, left for dead. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. See, that's all we have on the measure. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Sir.

Yes sir. My name is Ron Sturro. I was also wrongfully convicted. When we get out of prison, you know, we come out traumatized. People who committed crimes, they get out. They should be rehabilitated. We're not, we're traumatized. People who get out after they committed a crime. They get out and they hope the public, they try to work to gain the public's trust.

We have to work to trust the public again. So it's a whole different set of circumstances for us. And the advanced compensation, it stops the AG from using the tactic that they use.

For myself, if I were to qualify, I qualified for the 500,000, but they told me, well, we'll just appeal it and send you to the court.

And so if I would have went to court, it would have took me another 2-3 years to get the money, and then I would have lost more money because I would have had to pay an attorney to fight them in court.

So they know if we don't have the advance compensation, they get to just play the long game and just drag us out until we end up like Jardine and dead, if we don't have family members to help take care of us.

We quickly go from blessed to be out to scared and trying to figure out, how do we survive once we get out, you know, and then you ask, who did this happen to before this? I was a military member. I was in the Navy.

September 11th happened. I'm manning my battle station, ready to defend this island, in this country with my life. You know, I felt a sense of pride. I deployed for seven months after September 11. I was awarded a medal for saving a life.

I did all that stuff, and I came right back here to be wrongfully convicted, and sent to prison. And then, you know, everything I fought for, for this country, I didn't even get to enjoy the benefits of the Constitution that I supported and defended.

So this bill helps us to say, you know what, we got it wrong, let's help us make us right. We're not, our system is not a perfect system. But it's supposed to be a fair system. I'm not entitled to a perfect trial, just a fair trial.

And when the state gets it wrong, they should stand up like they want other criminals to do, stand up and say we're sorry and they should take accountability for it. Today they have not said I'm sorry to not one of us. They don't care if it's DNA, non DNA, it doesn't matter.

All our cases have been overturned and not one time have they stood up and said, we got this wrong and we're sorry. And I think that's a shame.

Thank you for being here and testifying, sir. I appreciate you sharing your story. Let's see. That is all we have on the measures here. Anybody else wishing to testify?

I think Sarah would like to testify.

Okay, Sarah, go ahead. You have two minutes, starting now. Go, go ahead, Sarah.

Technical difficulties Hi. Aloha. My name is Sarah Cordeiro. My brother is Gordon Cordeiro. Gordon was released a year ago this coming Saturday. It has been a year of reconnection, attempted healing, making up for lost time and struggling to re acclimate. I shudder to think what it would have been like without our support.

I could speak to you for hours about what he and our family experienced during his three decades of wrongful incarceration and the injustice he had already endured. But that's not what this hearing is about. This hearing is about the injustice that follows release. It's about what happens next. He was left at the gate with a paper bag.

He was released without the resources or structured support he needed to begin again. Today, Gordon is trying to rebuild his life in a world that has completely changed. He faces enormous challenges emotionally, physically, medically, and financially. And we are here for him every step of the way. But what if we weren't?

If not for our continued support in every way, including financial, where would he be today? Homeless. Alone. His daily living and medical needs unmet or worse. This bill is important because it recognizes that when someone loses decades of their life to wrongful imprisonment, they need immediate support. They need stability, medical care, and guidance. They need dignity.

They should not have to struggle alone after already enduring such a profound loss of time. Nothing can give Gordon or our family back the 31 years he lost. But this bill can help give him and others like him a real chance to rebuild their lives. It represents accountability. It represents compassion. And it represents a true commitment to justice. Please do not let.

Sarah, the timer has ended, so I'm going to have to have you some wrap it up here, so we can have the other testifiers jump on.

Of course. Please do not let another innocent person walk out of prison with nothing but the clothes on their back and no place to begin again. I respectfully urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I also got a note that there is a Gina Gormley who likes to testify. Is she on?

She did already. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Sorry about that. Inadvertent mistake. That's all we have on testimony. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, other questions? At all?

You did.

For the Attorney General.

Okay, Attorney General, this question for you. Come on up. Testimony is closed. We're going to have questions now.

Yes, Senator.

Yes. You've heard all the concerns about why the delays. And in these cases, can there be anything done on the prosecution side or whatever in terms of the process, and can you fix the process so that it is in 20 years of false incarceration?

Thank you, Senator. So part of the issue was when this statute, the 661b, was enacted in 2016, it had the language, actual innocence, and there was some difficulty interpreting what that meant. So we were interpreting it very literally as to what that meant.

There was no decision ever issued that said actual innocence was the finding by the appellate court in any Rule 40 petition. So taking that literally, having been no finding, that's what they were being held to. There was a recent decision in the Jardine case where the standard was lessened to this grounds consistent with innocence.

Since then, in 2024, they've been afforded some direction into what that meant, and that helped stimulate the conversation better in terms of settlement and gearing it towards settlement.

Since then, there have been settlements that have been entered into. And the settlements work in a manner to where because there are facts still on the prosecution side of the case that are not consistent with innocence, and there might be some factors that might be consistent with innocence. That's how settlements happen. Right?

But that's a process that needs to happen through the legal channels, not through an automated system.

So is there anything that needs to be amended in terms of how that could be expedited? Is it a petition? But because sometimes the prisoner doesn't know that they have these rights. And how can it be brought to attention so that it is assessed?

I don't know that anyone's not aware that they have these rights to pursue a petition under 661B. I honestly can't answer that. Whether or not they're aware or not aware. I's certainly becoming more aware. The issue of whether or not there needs to be a change in 661 to address that, our Department doesn't think so. We do think these cases are moving forward. I don't know.

The other issue that seems to be here is what the Comptroller has said is who's going to pay? How much is it? It's an undefined number.

At what point is it defined if it is at $5,000 a month for as long as you've been incarcerated or you know, what is something that's limited because we don't have an unlimited budget.

So what might that be? So that it is either capped or there's something that's there that we have amount specific.

Right.

My understanding, Senator, and reading the language of the bill and also 661b is the cap is $50,000 per year that you are incarcerated. I believe under this bill it would be the same. So although you're under the bill entitled to the $5,000 per month, that would not exceed the $50,000.

And it's per year that you're incarcerated, albeit wrongfully, is the standard that you are wrongfully incarcerated.

And the last question I have is who administers this? Because the court say, no, it's not us. Would it be the Attorney General's Office? I know the payment comes from DAGS, but who's to make that decision to say, okay, DAGS pay?

Well, my understanding, per the way the bill is written, it would, it's supposed to come from the Comptroller. I'm not sure who would inform the Comptroller that the $5,000.

That's my question who informs the Comptroller to pay?

It doesn't say.

Yeah, I, I guess I don't know. What would you say?

I'm not to have my own personal opinion. I, I don't know.

While we're up here, somebody we got written testimony from Karen Oshiro, came late. So I apologize about that. But in there they, you know, they suggested, I thought it was interesting idea upon release from incarceration, that they should be provided the same resources, those who've released for time served or paroled.

Would that be a way to give people resources they needed? It would be applicable to them as well as to other prisoners being released.

I believe purposefully we did not comment on those portions of the bill which basically state to give these individuals a caseworker so that they would have somebody to help assist them with that transition process upon release from incarceration. There are some individuals who were actually already out on parole when their convictions were overturned.

So I don't know that they would be in need of that type of assistance. I guess it would be case dependent. But if they were being released from custody, perhaps they could be afforded that.

But that would also be a jurisdictional issue because Corrections has testified that they can't be the person to do that because they no longer have jurisdiction over someone who is not in their care and custody or control.

There was adjustment to the House version of this companion bill that proposed it be put under the Judiciary, Adult Client Services Division. I don't know if that's permissible. I can't answer that. They would have to answer that for you, Senator.

There's a House Bill moving, though.

There is, and it's being heard again tomorrow in the second Committee, Public Safety.

Oh, okay.

This in a draft form already in HD1.

So you said Corrections said that it's not, it's not for them to do.

They don't have jurisdiction, Senator, because the person is no longer in custody.

But if it's false imprisonment, they're still in custody. They would.

But they would have to be released from custody immediately once their case is dismissed. So they lose jurisdiction over the individual. I believe that was the point of their testimony. I can't speak for them. I'm just reciting what they testified to at our hearing last week before the House Committee.

So you're, you're. I guess your whole point is that you think the current process works fine. Is that my understanding of what you've been saying?

Yes.

So I'm just curious, if it's working fine, why are all these people coming out testifying, saying that reform or some type of changes are needed?

Because I think I, you know, I think there's work in the bill, obviously that needs be to be done, but I think if it's, if it's, it should be done a little more surgically, probably. But I think if the AG is not necessarily being proactive, I just want to understand why. Not especially if there's people that are saying that we need reform. Right?

Right. I understand. I understand the issue being raised. The process may have been moving slowly. Mind you, I'm aware of only four petitions having been filed under 661. So when we're talking about.

Is it because it was too restrictive or?

I don't know. I can't answer the why. That would be speculative for me to say why. Only so many petitions have been filed.

But it seems like the practitioners are coming out and saying it's convoluted. Right? The people who actually have to work with people to bring the petition to you.

You do, you would have to file the petition.

And they're saying it's convoluted. Right? So that's why it's concerning to me.

I think all lawsuits are, I mean, contentious, but there still has to be that litigation process where there's actual merits and a decision is made on the merits, not an automated system.

I get it. It's just if the AG is taking the position that it's fine and we're not going to move and we're not going to try and suggest solutions, that's concerning, too.

So I would hope you would go back and assess what's been said and being like, okay, if there are changes, maybe the AG really needs to lead what the changes are going to be versus saying, oh, no, it's fine, but obviously, you know, we're having this bill because it's not fine. Right?

I understand your comment, Senator, and I think we have had discussions about our better understanding based on the outcome in Jardine and the Supreme Court's decision in helping define what actual innocence means under 661 in grounds consistent with innocence.

I think it has moved the needle a bit in evaluating what these cases mean in terms of discussions and resolutions. I can tell you in a case in particular that when settlements, settlement discussions commenced in December, a settlement was reached weeks later.

So once the settlement was extended by the petitioner, a settlement was actually entered in two weeks later. So I cannot say that there is something lagging in the system. I honestly don't know because I'm the prosecutor. I don't do the civil side of these cases. I'm just a firm believer in cases being decided on the merits, not an automated system.

Okay, well, maybe, maybe you need to take this back to the AG, right, to kind of figure out where we're going to head with this, because if not, the Legislature is just going to keep moving the bill.

But the House already has. It sounds like they've already picked a direction. So to his point.

I understand that, sir, but we have an obligation to taxpayer dollars, so we're going to always fight for cases to be advocated on the merits rather than an automated system.

That's good, too.

Okay. Anybody else? Any other questions? You? We're all good. Okay. What we're going to do with this measure is we're going to, as we do with everything the Committee hears, is we're going to defer time certain. So we will be hearing and having decision making on this bill, thursday, February 19, 2026 here in room 225 at 3pm. This concludes today's hearing on government operations. We are adjourning.