House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Thursday, February 26, 2026, 2:00pm in Conference Room 329. Fun and exciting agenda for you guys today. Vice Chair, go ahead.

Okay, before we get started on testimony, just want to remind folks of the two minute time limit. If I have a timer here, if it goes off, I will give you a warning to just wrap up your remarks just so that we stay on schedule.

First up on the agenda is HB 1946 HD1 relating to registration of timeshares. This provides that applications for registration renewal required by section 514e10 Hawaii provides statutes shall be deemed approved upon delivery.

I told you guys. Fun and exciting.

Okay, so first up is DCCA timeshare program.

Good afternoon. The Department stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Hilton Grand Vacations in support.

We'll stand our written testimony in support.

Thank you. American Resort Development Association in support.

Yeah. Standard Strong Support Fund are agreeable with the DCCA's three proposed amendments.

Thank you. And Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation in support.

We stand in strong support

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on HB 1946 HD1? Seeing none. Any questions, Members? Okay, moving on to the next agenda. Next Agenda, item HB 1515 HD1 relating to workers compensation.

This bill authorizes an attending physician to request a functional capacity examination and refer an injured employee for the examination without first obtaining permission from the employee's employer in order to assess the employee's ability to return to work. First up is Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support

Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. JoAnn Vidinhar, Administrator for Disability Compensation Division, representing the department. Thank you for hearing this important work comp bill. The department strongly stands on its testimony, and we're available for any questions. Thank you for allowing us to testify.

Thank you. Next up, Department of Human Resources Development in support.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Moving on to HB 1514, HD 1, relating to workers compensation. Clarifies the process for selecting a certified provider of rehabilitation services.

Requires providers to automatically approve vocational rehabilitation services for an injured employee if those services will likely be required for suitable gainful employment. And requires providers to file an employee's vocational plan no later than 90 days after submitting an initial evaluation report with search and exceptions. First up is Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support.

Again, JoAnn Vidinhar. We support the intent of this measure, although we do respectfully request some amendments to the measure. I think it will help to clarify our position. We always support improving the work comp processes to make it more efficient and ensure timely return to work for the injured worker. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Human Resources Development in support. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify on HB 1514, HD 1? Seeing none. We also had one individual submit testimony in support and seven in opposition. Members, any questions?

JoAnn. So your testimony, I believe your testimony said the 90 day provision was kind of a sticking point. Is that, was that your testimony or was that someone else's? If not...

It was someone else's testimony. Well, actually it's in our testimony, but it wasn't put in. The department did not recommend the 90 days, and so it's something that we asked to have amended up.

So for the 90 days, I mean the point is to kind of keep this thing moving. Is the problem... And I note in the bill with the 90 days it can be extended if the employer and injured worker and provider agree.

Would it make the department feel better about that provision if we added a kind of a one time extension based on the voluntary, I guess if the injured employee by themselves wanted it? Or is that, is that kind of the sticking point?

I think the sticking point is that we need collaboration between the providers and the employers. There's so many steps in voc rehab to allow them to formulate a proper plan, it's hard to set a 90 day timeline or any timeline on that. Because of every case is case by case. So it's more complex to say that 90 days unless we have an extension.

But how long can they treat before the treatment plan? Because there's a period of time, right, before the treatment plan is submitted where the provider can provide health care. How long is that period of time?

So the healthcare, not the consult, the counselor, the healthcare can continue for 15 treatments without. But that's not with VR. So that's outside of VR.

Yeah, I'm just trying to try to plug that in with the plan, and if they, if they have enough time to treat before the plan is due, so they can kind of better evaluate. I thought there was a time frame too. It's not, it's not a time frame. It's just 15 treatments?

Well, there's within 120 days.

Okay, so it's 120 day marker. So if we change the 90 to 120 days, that would kind of line up with the time where you need a treatment plan to continue to treat?

Yes, with the right of an extension. The challenge that we have with VR in the Department of Labor is we have a VR unit, but the unit is only staffed with one employee. That's the only person that we have. So for them to be able to look at what is most important to move VR forward.

And I think it's the initial evaluation, and it's that selection of the counselor to the initial evaluation. And then it's a proper formulation of a plan. So if it takes a little bit longer to formulate that plan, as long as there's justifiable reasons, medical reasons.

Or someone may not be feasible to be in VR for several reasons. So having that. And depending on the labor market condition where the individual lives, the formulation may be a little harder for that plan development.

How difficult is it to amend a treatment plan?

A treatment plan or a VR plan? A VR plan is, again, it goes back to coordination between the provider and the employer. So each employer or provider is not as responsive at times and the Director does not have the resources to continue to be on those individuals to move it forward.

So we think that if we can, we'd still streamline with some of the amendments in the bill for the selection. And we required a, or not required, but we requested a seven day timeline to take a reasonable time and establish that to seven days for notification.

I think a lot of times the employer does not know if the employee is wanting to be a part of it because VR is not a mandatory program. So an employee can select not to be in VR. And so because it's not mandatory, they have to choose if they want to select.

If they decide that they want to select, then there's the referral process. Once the referral is made and the selection is made, it's a good fit between the injured worker and the counselor. Then that selection is made and they have seven days is what we're recommending for them to tell the employer about that selection. I think that in itself will help to move the process forward.

There are some reasons why someone would not have a form, a plan formulated. And so if that's that 90 days that we start to be concerned, because that's all we'll have is more denials potentially. And we have more denials mean, which going against the intent to streamline the process, which it may delay a process.

And I do want to keep some pressure on them to get these plans out. I mean, I think most of the cases that you're talking about that extend past 90 days are more extreme cases or cases that are more complex, I should say. So is there some kind of mechanism we could put in place to identify those complex or weed out those complex cases to give them more time?

Well, I think your recommendation to extend it a little bit longer, but there still is going to be... We always ask for a director's discretion, but in this point, director's discretion going back to only have one staff member in the VR unit, that makes it really difficult.

How many openings do you have?

There's only one position tied to the unit and that position is filled, but that one individual cannot process. We have over 500 plans that come through, and that's not an amendment or a modification, that's just the amount of plans. So it can be amended, it can be modified. And so for them to be able to review all of it is challenging.

Do you think if we extended it then people would start coming in on like the 119th day as opposed to the 89th day?

Yes.

Okay, so people are going to try to stretch it as much as they can?

Yes.

Is that beneficial to them though? I mean, I think, I would think having a plan in place earlier rather than later...

The hard thing is that you'll have an injured worker that is not sure if that plan is fit for them. It's hard enough psyche wise to identify that I'm no longer able to go to my customary job. And so now you're trying to place me somewhere else. And so part of it that we have to, we look at is they're not ready to make that decision. And so the counselor has a harder time submitting that plan.

Yeah, and I understand it's difficult for them to make that decision, but I think our goal is to kind of help them get over that hump.

With the goal of VR is to return them to work as quickly as possible in a cost effective manner.

And you know, it is my hope that by setting some kind of hard deadline, it pushes people to kind of act. I understand there can be disadvantages to that as well.

I think we can take that into consideration. The 120 days with some allowance for, with good cause to extend.

Okay. I think 120 days is probably what we're going to recommend, but with the ability for, with agreement to extend too. Because you said you did not want director's discretion, right?

Well, yes and no. In a good world...

Alternative of we'll give you 120 days, and then if everyone agrees you can extend it or at director's discretion.

So I think something that we could do is take it out of the VR unit and not have the VR unit make that determination, but have our hearings officers make that call. So we'd have to take a look at that. I also have limited staff in hearings officers.

Your hearings officers are backed up too though. Right? So...

But I have more than one.

Someone could flip a coin.

I know that's the... That's the tough part. You know, we appreciate the bill. We appreciate what we're trying to do to move things forward. VR is a little harder of a challenge to figure out where that right date or time is.

Yeah, fair enough. Okay. Thank you, Director.

Any other questions?

Okay, moving on to the next measure. HB 1648 HD1 relating to workers compensation prohibits healthcare providers from dispensing non prescription drugs over the counter drugs and non legend drugs for workers compensation patients. Department of labor and Industrial Relations offering comments.

Thank you again. Joann Vidinhar. The Department appreciates the intent of this measure. It addresses excessive medical charges in the work comp system. We agree that cost containment is very important.

But the bill as drafted may unintentionally restrict access to medically appropriate care, including common non prescription or over the counter medications that are often the most suitable treatment for injured workers.

To balance cost control with clinical needs, we respectfully recommend allowing providers to dispense these drugs when they are medically necessary and ensuring that any charges do not exceed a prevailing retail price. We also ask that the bill clearly preserves providers ability to advise or direct injured workers to use these medications as part of appropriate treatment.

Thank you for allowing us to testify. I'm willing to answer any questions.

Thank you. Department of Human Resources Development in support.

We stand on written testimony in support.

Thank you. Aloha billing company offering comments, on Zoom.

I stand on my written testimony in support or with comments.

Thank you. Work Star in support on Zoom. Not present. Solera Integrated Medical Solutions in support.

Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Representative Iwamoto. I represent Solera.

Don't normally allow props, so I hope that's not a problem.

Oh, I'm sorry. I brought a couple of medications just to show you, you know, show you the difference. So on one hand, thank you very much. Thank you for correcting me.

So, you know, on the one hand, you know, maybe there's sort of an undiscovered area that needs attention and that's really the whole physician dispensing, you know, why we have it in the first place.

So one of my suggestions is to limit physician dispensing to the first 30 days following the injury, during which time they can easily transition to the employer's PBM and specific to 503B compounds. You know, our initial reservations about this legislation was that it prohibited prescribing and dispensing.

And I think prohibiting prescribing would be contradictory to 451-1 as well as 386. So we're suggesting this bill move forward with a couple amendments, one including the 503Bs and the prohibition for dispensing and then the 30 day limitation.

And the example that I wanted to show you was a very generic medication like methylcarbamol 500, which when physician dispense would be $1379 versus you know, the actual cost of that medication to the dispensing physician would be $10.

And when you think of the average wholesale price, which is our pricing mechanism for medications, you know, that is very, very open to abuse because it is the manufacturer relabeler repackager or the bulk compounder of the drug that reports that AWP to Redbook and then we're supposed to reprice the AWP, you know, with the, against the bill charges.

However, if that AWP is not the actual average wholesale price, then I think there's a, there's a big problem. So most states have moved away from, from such a, such pricing mechanisms.

But, but really, I think if anyone had to, anyone wanted to abuse the system and circumvent the existing cost controls with, with the AWP, you know, the way it is, it's very, very wide open for that. You know, we're on the front lines of that because we audit medical billings for insurers, employers, government agencies for auditing.

You know, we work with, you know, some of the federal agencies in our audits, in our work. So it's been very, very problematic and it's ramped up significantly since the practice began about 20 years ago.

Can you wrap up?

So yes, thank you very much. I know I've exceeded my time and thank you for graciously allowing me to do that. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on zoom would like to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Joann, again So if we roll this bill's language back to the original and then we just applied DLIR's proposed amendments, are you, are you okay with that? Do your proposed amendments apply the same way to the original bill? Would that kind of get rid of your concerns?

I think if we tighten up what the, this definition of prescription is so it's not giving that verbal direction, as well as if we don't confuse this with the compound bills, then I think we would be in a better place.

And your testimony I believe took out prescribe and put in another subsection that was just kind of giving advice. So I'm assuming that's what you're talking about there.

That's what I'm talking about, yes. Because when you look at prescription, are prescribed that could be written or it could be oral unless you define it. And so we want to define that what we're really talking about here is the written prescriptions,

Got you.

Not to take away the physician's ability to be able to provide oral guidance without writing the prescription.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to the next measure, HB 1644 HD1 relating to consumer protection requires a person or entity marketing or contracting for a residential solar energy device to provide the consumer a one page standardized disclosure form. DCCA Contractors Licensing Board offering comments.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kerrie Shahan. I'm the Executive officer of the Contracting Licensing Board. We've offered comments on the bill and I'm here if you have any questions. We'll stand on that testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA Office of Consumer Protection offering comments.

Good afternoon Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for hearing this bill. My name is Mana Moriarty. I'm the Executive Director of OCP and I appreciate Hawaii Solar Energy association for bringing this bill forward and starting this conversation.

I also think it highlights some of the stark differences in what we think may be meaningful consumer protection that should be included in the conversation. And the bill as it stands represents, I think, decisions that were made among members of the HSEA before OCP was involved in the conversation.

So I think decisions were made and compromises may have been made about what was effective consumer protection before we became involved. We've made a number of suggested amendments. We think consumer protections and the conversation should include a three day notice of cancellation mandatory.

We think it should include making the contract voidable for failure to provide the required disclosures. We think, we appreciate the testimony from the Hawaii Credit Union League which highlighted the question about whether this extended to lenders. We think that is a fantastic question. Should the voidability extend back to lenders? I think that is a great question.

If for, for example, if you were to as a consumer enter into a contract that failed to require, that failed to include this disclosure statement, should you still have to pay the lender who's financing your agreement?

We think perhaps the lender may be in a better position to judge the solar installers due diligence than a consumer would be. So these are some of the issues that I think we should explore. We proposed amendments there and I'm happy to leave it there and address any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Kauai Utility Cooperative in support on zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Member of the Committee, Scott Sato from KIUC. KIUC stands on its written testimony in strong support of this measure as we've experienced some of these experiences here on Kauai and have heard from our members. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hawaii Solar Energy association in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. I'm Rocky Mould with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on our comments in strong support of the measure. Just note that, you know, we did reach out to DCCA beforehand and worked out a lot of the measures and changed the bill around based on that conversation a bit.

So glad to hear that there are constructive edits coming in. We're open to those, of course, but we're in strong support of this measure and believe it's really important as we drive towards our renewable energy goals as we increase adoption of rooftop solar and energy storage in Hawaii. I'm here for questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto.

For DCCA? So I think you mentioned, the last point I think you made was about lenders. There are two, are there two universal lenders? One is a lender or financer who often comes in with the, through the contractor. And one might be a home equity loan bank offering. So those would be two different universes, right?

And so when you, I guess when you said it would, the lender would be in a better place to kind of advocate for the consumer. You meant, which one did you mean? Or both?

You know, I hadn't sort of appreciated this distinction. And I think, you know, that that should apply potentially, you know, to both the, the calculation or the calculus that we're thinking of is that the lender is situated better to assess whether the contractor, the installer is in compliance with the disclosure requirement.

We've seen this come up in other situations where we have sort of a hard money lender for a, a property that is being flipped.

And we think, and we've taken this position in our enforcement actions that the hard money lender has a duty of due diligence to figure out whether the contracting parties followed requirements established by law, for example, in the mortgage rescue fraud context. Rather than in that context, rely on the consumer homeowner who was being foreclosed on to determine whether the contract complied with statutory requirements.

The lender absolutely should be doing due diligence to figure out whether that installer they're partnering with is operating in compliance with the law.

Okay, thank you. And then I have a question for the solar installer. Have you had a chance to read over the recommended amendments made by the DCCA?

Not fully. Just saw those today. What I heard sounds reasonable, you know, orally. So, you know, I'll just reiterate like, the purpose of this bill is, is to get everyone playing on the same page and protecting consumers. Right? It's about parity in consumer protection and guarding against unfair trade practices.

So we're all for leveling the playing field to protect consumers.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Just want to make sure we're not misrepresenting what their testimony is. They didn't testify on any of the provisions you're proposing, the voidability portion or the ability within three days to cancel the contract. They are asking for an exemption from the requirements here, but that's the requirements of the HD1 version.

I've looked at your voidability provisions, and I think I agree with them, but I'm not sure I agree that the contract or arrangement or agreement between the consumer and the bank should necessarily be affected, even if the person can void their solar contract. That bothers me a little.

And I just want to make sure that we know that they were not commenting on your testimony. Seemed to imply that they were. They were okay with that, too, or they were at least considering that testimony. Did you speak to them before? Is that why you?

No, What I was focusing in on, I did not speak with them beforehand about it. So what I was reacting to was their testimony, which I think very clearly raised the question of lender liability. So is there lender liability for a violation in the context of the HD one?

And I think that is the question that we think deserves a conversation. Rather than jump to the conclusion that lenders should be insulated from liability. There is a power dynamic between the lender and the installer that is just not there between the borrower and the bank, or between the borrower and the installer.

In many cases where you have a much less sophisticated consumer or borrower who is taking out a significant loan for a financial product that may be in the tens of thousands of dollars. In the event that the contract with the installer falls through, what actually is left for the consumer or borrower to get there?

There's nothing because the contract is void. And yet you may have a separate financing arrangement which has the consumers pen to paper out there and has them on the hook to pay back the loan. But, but the loan is not.

Is the bank not backing up the money they didn't pay to the solar company. I mean, unless there's an early payment penalty, which is not too common, I don't understand why the purchaser would be in too much of a worse position, honestly. Also, the credit union is testifying that they really just don't know anything. They don't have the technical expertise to do it. I mean, you're representing that they do.

They're saying that they have no idea. And I wouldn't, If I'm taking a car loan out to buy a new car, I wouldn't expect my bank to go check the car out either. I mean that I don't know a lot about cars. I just was, you know, that's just me.

But yet what if I'm taking the loan out to buy the car? I wouldn't expect the bank to be like, okay, well I don't, you know, Grandpa Tayoshi has no idea.

I'm gonna go down there and take a look and make sure this car is worth 23,000 or something that I think that's unreasonable and similar to the, to the solar guys. I wouldn't expect bank employee to send someone down to my house to check out my roof to make sure I've got adequate space.

I understand the distinction that you're drawing and I think there is room for a distinction between having the lender sort of know the product and the ins and outs of, you know, whether this was sized appropriately for the house and having the lender check that the appropriate paperwork was in place.

What this bill requires is a disclosure notice. And if that disclosure notice is not provided, then the lender could be on the hook for the contract.

Now it seems to me that the lender could easily go through training for their personnel to ensure that the partners who they're working with have the appropriate compliance regime in place to ensure that this notice of disclosure is provided in every single instance.

And the remedy here is if this notice is not provided, then the lender is on the hook. And of course then they stop doing business with that installer or that operator who is making the loan without compliance with the disclosure requirements,

Or they stop making these loans entirely because they don't want to risk it too. Right? I mean, we run the risk of the other thing, which is a lot of banks just start pulling out and say we want to risk being on hook for this for the three day window. I don't think anyone, that's such a short window.

If you went out and got a loan from the bank, I don't think there'd be too much harm if it got canceled. Bank hasn't, there's not enough time to really pay a lot out at that.

But if you're talking about the length of the contract, failure to give that notice, I mean, that could impact the bank more significantly. Now, these aren't, you know, million dollar loans for commercial or for residential lease. But I think, I disagree that the bank should have to make sure that the homeowner got proper notice.

I mean, why aren't we making the banks give this notice then, if that's the case? Or do you want to do that too?

Yeah, interesting question. I'm glad that you raised it. Thank you. No, I appreciate your position and comments on it. I think these are the types of questions that could be appropriately fleshed out through our conversations with other people in the industry. What this bill proposes right now is here's the parameters.

DCCA, please go make some rules in consultation with the industry about what this is supposed to look like at the end of the day. You know, those conversations that occur during rulemaking are also taking place out of the public eye.

Those are sort of fraught because at the end of the day, if we have a, if we are coming at the rulemaking proceeding with a very different perspective on what constitutes a meaningful consumer protection, we end up exposing ourselves to litigation.

I think the Legislature is the better place to be making these decisions about what our appropriate public policy is in terms of consumer protection. If that means more conversations are needed about particular areas like cancellation rate, lender liability or voidability, I think we should be having those conversations.

Yeah, I guess I just feel uncomfortable putting it on the banks who have no privity of contract, no real relationship. They may. I mean, that's a tough place for the lenders to be in. But, you know, after we modify this bill and, you know, if we decide to pass it forward, then maybe they'll weigh in on this.

Hopefully they're listening right now. I'd call them up, but they're not here. So hopefully they're listening right now and can comment on the Next Committee.

Yeah, and I agree with you that the lenders, the responsible lenders in our communities are listening. What I'm concerned about is those lenders outside of our communities who don't really care, who have a transactional relationship with Hawaii borrowers. And those are the hard money lenders financing mortgage rescue, fraud situations, and home flipping.

Those are the lenders that will not do due diligence, even if it's imposed on them and will require our effort, our enforcement, to check. Thank you for your time.

Can I ask a follow up. Sorry. And this is. I'm just actually asking you to repeat the example you gave of a similar situation where lenders have the duty to check for compliance.

We've taken that position in our enforcement actions where the lenders have a responsibility to ensure that in the context of a distressed sale, a distressed property sale, that compliance was observed with the requirements of Chapter 480e Mortgage Rescue Fraud Law.

That law requires any transactions involving distressed property to include a written distressed property consultant contract or a written distressed property conveyance contract. Those are mandatory contracts that must be in place under 480E. If those contracts are not there, you know, obviously there's some.

The arrangement between the consultant and the property purchaser, whatever arrangement it is, we're arguing that that is void. We've obtained an award of summary judgment to that fact. So we're having some success with that argument.

With respect to the lender, I think the same goes for the lender, that the lender could easily have checked whether this document existed and they knew or might know in the context of a risky transaction, that this property was distressed property bought at a value that doesn't meet statutory minimums.

So the lender is much better situated in that place to know. And of course, Rep. Matayoshi, as a litigator, has a lot of experience taking other tactics.

Properties were worried about, though. I mean, I thought this bill was to target people who are being taken advantage of, like the guys knocking on your door. Not someone trying to flip a distressed property and trying to put solar on a roof and getting a loan from a shady vendor or something like that.

If someone's trying to flip a property, a distressed property, I'm a little less worried about protections for them. I'm more worried about the more average consumer getting basically defrauded here. You're trying to focus this lender obligation based on distressed property sales and flipping.

That's just an example. Analogous.

Yeah, but that is the example. I was just responding to that particular example. But I would say our office is aware of consumer complaints to our office where the contract has fallen through and the lender is demanding payment.

Has the money been paid to the contractor at that point?

The money has been paid because the lender's still demanding payment.

If we allow the voidability portion, I mean, the money should be coming back, right? Otherwise it's just unjust enrichment I would think anywhere it's equitable, but you know, you know what I mean.

And if we extended voidability to the lender, it would be clear that the lender could not make a lawful demand on the homeowner in that particular situation.

So it force the lender to go out after the solar company?

The installer, who failed to live up to their contractual commitment. Correct.

There's no privity of contract between the two. So you'd have to. I, I don't know how you do that. I'm not sure you have standing for that. Right?

I think some factual discovery would be needed to determine if there is some privity of contract or some other relationship that warrants going after the installer in that situation.

Third party beneficiary. I, I'm struggling to find the legal basis for that, I guess. And that's what kind of, that's kind of what I'm getting at with this whole thing that I don't think there should be, I don't think the lender should be responsible for that. For two other parties, contracts really. I don't know. I guess I'm just not convinced.

I understand. I think one of the issues that we're seeing is that, and perhaps our friends in the industry could tell me better what exactly is the nature of the relationship between the installer and the financer?

Because I think that relationship in some situations is much closer than many people would be comfortable with if they actually knew what the relationship was.

Which is, can I just say, which I think is different than the banks you're talking about. Which is why I was saying there are two universes where there is a tight nexus between, between the financer and the installer because oftentimes the installer comes and says, I can arrange financing for you here.

Okay, anyone in the industry want to comment? Let's hear.

I just want to bring it back to the intent of the bill is to really is to, you know, govern the door knocker. You know, folks that are going out there and selling product and misrepresenting it in some way. We'd be getting reports of increased activity like that. It seldom happens.

It's still a minority, but we heard about it happening a little bit more. We wanted to just proactively clean that up a bit and make sure that we filled this gap where third party door knocking entities were not governed by the same rule, clearly governed by the same rules as solar contractors going and selling.

So that's really what we wanted to do. There are different, there are different ways of financing these. There are different universes. It's more than two, probably, I would imagine.

But the main two really are the cash market, where a customer contracts with a solar entity and then gets financing from a bank through some kind of, you know, HELOC or direct financing. The other universe is leasing, where there is a closer connection between the financier and the leasing company.

And sometimes there's a contractor that's contracted with the leasing company, sometimes they're one company that's doing it. But I think this bill covers all of those scenarios.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Members? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to the next measure. HB1619 HD2 relating to electric vehicle infrastructure, excludes from the definition of development as it applies to special management areas, the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of an EV charging system. Public Utilities Commission in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Ashley Norman, on behalf of Johnny, written a co comments and support and available for any questions.

Thank you. That was all on our test fire list. Anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Members, Any questions?

Okay, Moving on to HB 1571 HD1 related to condominiums. For purposes of registering a condominium project in an agricultural district, this Bill, one, lowers the minimum threshold from projects with five units to projects with two units for which a signed copy signed statement from a community. Sorry.

Signed statement from a county is required, and two, requires the project applicant to make a presentation on the project to the neighborhood board. If applicant.

First up is Hawaii association of Realtors offering comments. Thank you, Chair by standard. Thank you, Raquel Achoo. Individual in support on Zoom.

Yes, Vice Chair. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I submitted some written testimony. Somewhat likely. I apologize. I'm in support.

This is an issue that we have been trying to address within our community as we have, at the very least, five projects that have bypassed any type of community input and have taken away a significant amount of acreage of agricultural lands and turned into developments that have completely displaced either farmers or ranchers.

Raquel, I just want to make sure you're not driving. Are you right in the passenger seat?

No, not so. Yeah. I mean, I'll stand by my written.

Are you. Sorry. Are you in the passenger seat?

Okay. Just making sure. Go ahead.

Yes.

Yes. So that's. It's all written in my written testimony and it's just an issue that we're trying to work with which we and Rep. Perruso. So I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom testifying on HB 1571? Okay. Seeing none. Members, Any questions? No, we don't. Okay, moving on to the next measure. HB 1810 HD1 relating to charitable solicitation.

Establishes prompt payment and financial reporting requirements for professional solicitors that sell donated or collected non perishable tangible property on behalf of a charitable organization.

Good afternoon, Chair and vice Chair. My name is Katie Chen. I'm the President and CEO of Goodwill Hawaii, its own 501 C3 nonprofit that has been in the island since 1959. And we help disadvantaged populations with job placement, job education, job counseling and training.

Last year, we helped over 8,000 people in these areas find jobs within Goodwill and in a multitude of other sectors. We are in strong support of HB 1810 HD1, whose sole purpose is to enhance transparency among those involved in charitable fundraising and donations.

This is a critical step forward to make clarity to those who donate each and every day to what we call donation pods. Right now there are for profit companies that have set up statewide. They've more than tripled the number of donation pods on this island.

And there is a clear misunderstanding that when you donate to these pods that it somehow benefits primarily local nonprofits. That is absolutely not the case. And this, this bill would help bring transparency to those for profit solicitors of donated goods.

The funds that we also have, pods and the funds that we generate from the collection and sale of those donations goes right back into the programs that we implement on a charitable basis.

And so we're concerned if that the current charitable laws are not enforced against these professional fundraisers, that we'll continue to see donations being redirected away from deserving charities to benefit for profit companies. So we would like to address the concerns of the Department of the Attorney General.

We are amenable to the delay in the effective date for Section 3 to become January 1, 2027. However, we request that the amended definitions and the prohibited practices that are described in the bill take effect upon approval. Not until January 1, 2027 but the most.

Sorry, would you mind wrapping up your.

Oh, okay. Thank you. But the last thing I would just note is that the AG has requested appropriation to enforce the provisions of this bill.

And we would just like to note that we are one of the over 10,000 registered charities in the state that are already paying annually funds into directly into a special Fund that the AG's office is supposed to be using to enforce the charitable act.

And so although they're requesting additional appropriation to enforce this bill, they already have the funds sitting in. They already have the funds to do this enforcement at over 5 million doll existing right now.

Thank you so much. Retail merchants of Hawaii and support on Zoom not present. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure. Seeing none. Any questions, Members? Okay, Moving on to HB2475 HD1 relating to labeling requirements. Establishes labeling requirements for Okolehau products. Department of the Attorney General offering comments.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon. You submitted written comments on HB 2475 in light of the Federal Alcohol Administration act as it relates to federal preemption and the Foreign Commerce Clause. The Department believes that it is unlikely that the federal act preempts the bill because the bill does not relate to alcoholic beverage and health labeling requirements.

The Department also believes that it is unlikely that the Foreign Commerce Clause is implicated because the bill does not violate Congress's purpose for enacting its alcohol beverage labeling requirements. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in support. Not present. Orion Ola Brewing Corporation in support Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee.

My name is Naehalani Breeland. I'm the President and co-Founder of Ola Brew and now distillery on Hawaii Island. Our mission has always been to support the growth of Hawaii's agricultural economy and by that, creating a more circular economy. In addition to my written testimony, I just wanted to share a little story.

About five years ago, we entered the San Francisco World Spirits Competition with okolehau for the first time. Just to get some notes from world class judges. We didn't have a bottle yet, so naturally we sent our oholehau in a plastic jug with blue construction tape saying FDA approved Okolehau Enjoy.

It became the laughingstock of the competition until the blind tasting began. That jug advanced round after round and ultimately won double gold and best in class at the world's most prestigious spirits competition in the world. Since then we've earned over 74, or actually 74 international awards.

This was the first Okolehau that has stood on the world stage since the 1889 Paris Exhibition as well as the Chicago World Fair in 1893, both representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. The common thread there between our spirits and that represented by our monarchs is that it's 100% Hawaii Groenki that makes the spirit. It's that simple.

This is not just a heritage spirit of Hawaii, it's also personal. Over a hundred years ago in Waikiki, my great grandfather Joseph Ahuna, also known as the king of the bootleggers, was involved in perpetuating this art form during a time when distillation was pushed underground, he helped to keep it alive.

Today we're working to rebuild this industry here at home for all distillers in Hawaii as a place based spirit that we can export to the world for the world to enjoy. The question is pretty simple. If we do not define okolehau clearly, who will? And if we don't protect it now, what happens to it next?

History gives us the answer with a legal definition, okolehau. Without a legal definition, okolehau has been diluted, misclassified and commercialized. When we fail to protect something that's ours uniquely, it doesn't scale, it gets co opted. That has happened to us too many times with HB 2475.

It ensures that that doesn't happen with okolehau by requiring at least 51% Hawaii grown KI. And in state distillation we anchor the value. Here we protect our farmers, our story and our economic future. Mahalo for Letting me testify. And if you have any questions, I'm open to them.

Thank you.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure, seeing none. Members, any questions?

I have a question for the Attorney General's office. Your testimony, you spoke about that this would not be printed because it doesn't pertain to alcohol. But there is so many, so much testimony from alcoholic beverage manufacturers. So I'm getting. I'm kind of confused about. It feels like. Yeah, I'm not sure why you're saying that. It doesn't.

It has nothing to do with alcohol, but all of the testimony support is saying it's alcohol.

Oh, it's. So there's an express preemption provision in the federal act that I guess it prohibits states from creating their own labeling requirements for alcoholic beverages and health. So that health component is important as well.

Oh, okay.

So, for example, like the surgeon general warning that you see on alcoholic beverages, the feds, they regulate that and preempt states from altering that warning. Okay. Okay. Thank you for explaining that.

Any other questions? Okay. All right, Moving on to HB 1645 HD2 relating to liability, provides certain liability protections for nonprofit child welfare service organizations that are under contract with the Department of Human Services to provide child welfare services to children and families. DCCA Insurance Division offering comments.

Thank you. Vice Chair. The Insurance Division will stand on its recent comments.

Thank you. Department of the Attorney General in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lynn Yeomans. I'm a deputy attorney, Attorney General, and we oppose this bill because of the financial burden that it would place on the state. And I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Hawaii Association for Justice in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee of Evan Oue on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice, you do have our testimony. We do stand in opposition. We did want to express. We do understand the intent of the bill.

However, the removal of joint and several liability is concerning from our perspective and primarily because of the impact that it could have on the abuse victims themselves. You know, largely what this, what joint and several liability is.

It's a very consumer friendly tool within the judicial system in order to ensure that the victims are fully compensated for their, you know, their losses during this time.

So, you know, removal of that tool, you know, while we understand why it's in the bill, I think that it does create a lot of uncertainty for victims in their recovery process. So, you know, for those reasons, we do feel as though there are other alternatives from a policy perspective that offer.

Offer A little bit more balance, such as, you know, incorporating the insurance costs into the procurement process while, you know, internal policies can be reviewed to ultimately reduce the abuse cases long term. I think that should be the goal at the end of the day.

So, you know, for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the Bbll and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Parents and Children Together in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Tricia Kajimura, with Parents and Children Together, or pact. We're in strong support. PACT is a statewide social services organization providing services across the state, on every island. And we faced a really scary situation last September when we came up for our annual insurance renewal.

Our liability insurer had pulled out of the market nationwide, and we went up to the last day of the month to find a replacement. We were very close to not finding any insurance, in which case we would not be able to provide any services. We serve about 18,000 individuals per year.

Child welfare services are a portion of our services and contracts. And the insurance companies did name our child welfare service contracts as the reason for not providing us with liability insurance. We have in the last year, 2500 cases for child welfare services. So what we are looking for solutions so that we don't face this again this September.

That's how soon we could face a crisis in this matter. And what we're asking is that we take on only our own liability and not the liability of the state or other parties to claims. When we have to take on the liability of the state. Our ability to do this work has become untenable.

And so we're asking for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Child and Family Service in support on Zoom.

Hi. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Brady Schma. I'm speaking on behalf of Amanda Pump and Child and Family Service. We're here in strong support of the HB 1645 HD2. This bill is incredibly important for nonprofits like ours. A contract with the state to deliver child welfare services.

The liability protections in this measure are not just technical fixes. They directly impact, whatever impact, whether organizations like ours can afford to continue operating. Child and Family Service is a statewide nonprofit focused on strengthening children and families through prevention, intervention and treatment programs. Each year, we serve roughly 4,000 children and 7,000 families through DHS contracts.

And nearly 90% of families we serve experience positive outcomes. But like many child welfare providers, we're facing serious challenges in the liability insurance market. Over the past year, our professional liability insurance costs have tripled and our coverage options have narrowed significantly. Insurance is required under our contracts.

If we cannot secure affordable and appropriate coverage, we simply can't continue delivering these critical services. This Bill helps address that risk by clarifying liability protections for nonprofits. I think on behalf of the state, this bill helps stabilize access to insurance and ensures the state can continue partnering with community based providers. Thank you for your time and commitment.

I'm here for questions as well.

Thank you. Shannon Alibado Individual in support not present Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities Hawaii. We did, we did submit written testimony. We support this bill because as you've heard, organizations are getting to the point where they might not have insurance, they might not be able to continue their services.

That's so significant to the vulnerable kids and families in our state. We can't go there and then say, whoops. So we really appreciate this bill. We appreciate, we strongly support the amendments that are in the HD2. We feel that they actually make it so that liability is proportionate to what the services are.

So yes, agencies are still going to be liable and accountable for the services provide. They're not going to be liable for other services that they're not associated with. It's not under their control. And so we feel this is a fair division that will assist both sides. Right. State's not also going to take on reliability of the organization.

So it's cut so that it's more defined and I think it's cleaner. We really feel that this is something that will help to continue these services and also to continue the work of the people. Because if insurance costs go way up in a budget, that means other things get left out.

So it's harder maybe to hire people because you don't have service, you know, you don't have a cost to hire new people. So we feel this is really an important thing for our UETF services to this very vulnerable population. Thank you so much for hearing this bill. Thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to testify?

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Ryan Toyomora, SanHi Government Strategies on behalf of Parents and Children Together. You have our testimony here which in support of this measure. I just wanted to kind of take a moment to kind of reframe a couple of things for your consideration when you're looking at this bill.

You know, one of the things that I think, I think it's important to note here is that when looking at, I saw testimony regarding the indemnification language and I think the issue here or the focus on that testimony was that indemnification language would only mean that the provider is on the hook for any kind of negligence that they would have participated in.

But the broad scope of the actual provision itself says anything that arises out of or is related to the negligent act.

So as you can imagine, that's pretty broad language, meaning that if the provider has a negligent act, does something that's negligent, and then the state is made aware and subsequently they commit a negligent act that could be argued that it is related to arising from that initial negligent act, in which case the providers then are.

And so I want to frame this in the sense that when you look at contracts throughout the state, you know, there are many contracts that are profitable. The person that's seeking the contract is going to make a profit.

And I think in those cases it makes sense that you might want to shift some of that risk and burden and costs on someone who's making profit. But these providers are non profits and so they're not profiting off in that way.

And so what this book is really trying to do is to balance the field and to say, you know, we're trying to be part of the solution because, because the burden to provide the service that would ultimately fall in the state, we're taking out and try to be part of that solution and just to seek balance in terms of that liability and risk to be allocated across everybody state together.

So with that, I ask for your support and ask this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to testify on HB 1645 HG2 seeing none. Members, any questions?

Thank you, Chair for the Attorney General's office. So I think the gist of your opposition is the overwhelming liability that taxpayers, the cost that taxpayers will face. But if these, all of these contracted providers, if they can't get insurance, if they have to pull back from servicing the child welfare demands that the state actually needs to provide.

And so the state goes out in contracts. If everyone pulls back, wouldn't there be a lot of liability that we would face just by the mere fact that no one's taking on these contracts?

So first of all, when we're talking about the liability in the tort litigation realm, the state, you guys all vote on AG1, our Bill on the unit tort liability. So the state does take on a tremendous amount of liability in these cases because we are a separate party, we are separately sued.

So that's why we pointed out in Our testimony that the indemnification is limited to the acts of the particular contractor at issue. And yes, we do acknowledge that the insurance situation is a complex and difficult problem that we are going to have to resolve.

And our testimony includes that the procurement process is one process that we'll have to explore in terms of resolving this particular issue. We will also have to explore, I think, policy solutions about tort liability in order to make sure.

Because if what we're saying is to make this functional in order for the nonprofits to provide these services, I think we have to wrestle with are we saying that the state has to assume that liability take on a greater portion of that cost?

And I think we have to be explicit about that if that's what we're going to do.

And so that's kind of the questions that we have is if what we're saying is to make this insurance market work, that the liability has to go to the state or, you know, there has to be some other way to address the amount of that liability, then those are significant policy questions that I don't think are properly raised in this Bill.

Can I ask a follow up question at the ag? So this Bill, from what I understand it also puts a cap or limits or doesn't allow for punitive damages. Isn't that a huge part of liability? So isn't that a positive for the, for the taxpayers ultimately?

So the Department of the Attorney General doesn't have a specific objection to those portions of the Bill. It's on the prohibition of allowing the state to include in its contract the standard language regarding the indemnification of the state for the acts of the contractors, agents or employees and the prohibition on requiring insurance to back up that indemnity.

Can I ask one more? Go ahead. Last one. Okay, last one. So there's other ways that we, we can kind of minimize that by actually having staff trained to go in to these providers and actually do a better job screening, making sure there is no negligence happening, making sure there's safeguards and procedures.

Couldn't we invest more in our state workers to go into these organizations to make sure they're, you know, crossing their T's, dotting their I's in terms of child safety?

I mean, I think so. Two things. One, I don't want to speak for the Department of Human Services and their ability to hire folks who would be able to, you know, do deep dive into the management of particular nonprofits. That's sort of outside my particular area of expertise.

Whether or not the Department of Human Services would have the funds and the capability to hire staff to do that kind of level of management analysis of the particular nonprofit. I just, I don't. I could give you an answer, but it would be just, you know, nonsense thoughts.

But I mean, I think this has been such a common part of the way contracting has been done through the state that and for, we believe, legitimate public policy reasons and for legitimate concerns of, you know, the state and, you know, stewardship of contracts and services that are provided to the, the state.

So that's why we're in opposition to prohibiting it by law.

So I guess I'm trying to get my head around this indemnity issue. When we say that the organization is going to indemnify the state, is that, does that mean that if the state does something negligent, the organization has to indemnify the state for that act? And I'm. I believe you said no, right?

I did say no. And if you read so in our testimony, we specifically include the language of the indemnity clauses in there. So the standard General conditions require indemnity for harm or loss.

And this is the quote arising out of or in connection with the axe or omissions of the provider or the provider's employees, officers, agents and or subcontractors.

But if, if liability is joint and several, does that even apply then?

So joint and several liability, so joint settled. That assumes there's a judgment. Right? So the plaintiff has secured a judgment against multiple defendants and joint and several liability make sure that the plaintiff doesn't have to sort of guess at their own peril if everybody's going to pay.

And joint and several liability isn't a strong interest of the state. We don't have any objection to eliminating joint several liability because as I said earlier, the state is paying its judgments.

This is not a situation where the state is not paying its portion of the judgment as you know, agreed upon in a settlement or as found at the end of trial. The state is covering those with the funds appropriated by the Legislature.

And we are not using joint and several liability to make the plaintiff try to get money.

If the organization PACT is indemnifying the state, what's the situation where that indemnity provision would kick in?

So if a plaintiff were to sue the state as a defendant solely and not sue pact, yet the harm caused was the result of the negligence or potential wrongdoing of an agent or employee of pact, then the state would include PACT in the lawsuit and ask that PACT cover the cost of the harm or loss done by the negligence or wrongdoing of their employee and cover that with the insurance.

Even without this indemnity provision, wouldn't you add them as a co defendant anyway? Wouldn't you drag them into the lawsuit anyway, though? The plaintiff would have that choice. You couldn't force him in as a co defendant.

You know, we would use this indemnity clause as the way to get them involved in the lawsuit, as making sure that we as the state weren't responsible for the negligence of wrongdoing.

So you're saying you need this indemnity provision to add that as a co defendant, you can make a third party claim against them? I mean, it's been a while since I've been a litigator, I guess, but I can't you just do a third party complaint against PAC then in that

situation, you know, this is what we've been using as a state in order to make sure that we aren't taking responsibility as a state for the negligence or wrongdoing of our contracted service providers. I mean, this is why it's been in the General conditions for all contracts.

Because this is not just, you know, as we explained in our testimony, this is not just for the child welfare services organizations. Right, I understand.

It just seems like there's a legal mechanism that you don't, wouldn't necessarily need that. Now, that being said, because there's that mechanism, maybe it doesn't do any harm to the other organizations to have this indemnity provision in there anyway. I'm just, just kind of struggling with whether or not we should include this at all.

You know, let me touch on a different subject that's kind of related. The additional insured question is also in here in Section 2. Does it typically cost money? My impression, my recollection is that it really doesn't. But does it ever cost money to add an additional insured to an insurance policy?

So, you know, I am not an insurance expert. I mean, that would be a question for the. Maybe I could ask my fellow employee, state employee of the insurance side.

But whether it costs money to add an insurer to a policy, add an additional insured, does it typically cost more?

Sure.

To that point, Chair, I think that would depend primarily on the situation. I mean, to the best of my knowledge, that would just be like obtaining a. Basically it would be a stacking of policies. So you would just go and get an additional coverage.

So, you know, you get two policies that would match you up to whatever cap you're trying to get to. Adding an additional insured is just adding another person insured of the same.

Another entity or person, I guess, insured under the same policy. Right.

Yeah. So I mean, I think in that situation, if you were to add. Well, let's take the example of PACT and the state of Hawaii, you know, I can't imagine that that would incur an additional fee. However, that would be decided upon the individual insurer's process.

You know, if it results in additional paperwork administratively, I mean, it's up to the insurer whether they want to tack on a fee. But I couldn't tell you right now whether that's. I can't imagine it's like a significant fee, if there even is one.

Okay. Can I ask actor Catholic Charities to comment on whether, whether you guys are against being added as additional insured as well? I've taken you. Why, what's the, what's the issue here? Unless there's a significant.

Sorry,

are you interested? Is the reason you don't want to be. Don't want to include the state as an additional insured.

Is that a monetary, Is there a monetary reason behind that that you pay an additional fee for your insurance company to add them as an additional insured, or is it just that you think the state might cannibalize the policy? I mean, I'm just kind of wondering why you're fighting for that at all. I guess.

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. I can find out what happened in our last renewal with that particular cost for that item.

Yeah, I'm just curious if it affected it at all. But you can get back to us with that. Thank you. Sure.

I can answer a question regarding. So real quickly, you raised a really great question about defense and how they could bring in notwithstanding the identification provision. And so joiner of necessary parties is a defense often brought in by defendants in litigation. And so is a claim for contribution. But that's separate and apart from identification. Right.

Because if they were to bring those defenses, the identification provision would kick in and would say that not what the judgment is. We as the providers are identifying the state. So if there's an adverse judgment, we're going to take care of the claims. The. The judgment that's adverse state.

And so they can still bring us into the litigation through those mechanisms. But the indemnification provision, which is contractual based, would put the providers on hook for the judgment. And that's, that's where the issue comes into play, if that makes any sense. So it's. The defense is.

It's one thing to have the defense, but the indemnification provisions is notwithstanding that defense, you still have to pay for my, the damages that I may have caused. Excuse me, I may have balanced.

It's only if you can trace it back to them anyway though, right? I mean, if you could trace it back to them anyway, why wouldn't you just be able to hit them with it anyway?

I think that's, that's the problem with the language that that was quoted in the testimony. It's arising out of or connected to.

So if you have an initial negligent act by the provider, but some act that is connected to that original act by the state is negligent, all those acts could be deemed connected to or rising out of that original negligent act.

So even if the state was fully at fault for doing something negligent because it's connected to that original act, they would be swept up under that provision. And that's a problem.

Is that the standard language for state. I don't know if you want to. Is that the standard language for the kind of the larger nexus system?

So, yes, that's the standard language that's in both child welfare services contracts and the 103. It's arising out of or resulting from the actual omission.

Okay. And this is going to sound like a silly question because I think I know the answer to this already. But the foster parents, they're not considered agents of the state somehow, right? If they had a bad act, there's almost no way that they could be, that liability could be imputed onto the state. Is that correct?

That's correct. We don't have contracts with the resource caregivers in the way that we would with a nonprofit providing services. So this language is not.

Yeah. Think that. But I was pretty sure it was not that way. Okay. Is there anything. Okay. All right. I'm good. Thank you all.

Okay. Moving on to HB 2301, HD 1, relating to school licensure. Transfers the licensing authority of private trade, vocational, and technical schools from the DOE to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. DCCA in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Nadine Ando, Director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. And so, as we put in our written testimony, we are opposing this transfer that's I guess requested by the Department of Education to transfer private trade, vocational, and technical schools to be licensed under the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. And this wasn't how the Bill, as I understand it, was originally crafted.

The measure did not have it put transfer from DOE to DCCA. Somehow that happened in an amendment. And so, we are, we now see this Bill and we say this really does not fall within our mission, our expertise, or existing regulatory structure of anything we license.

You know, our core functions are the individual, professional, and vocational licensure, enforcement of unfair and deceptive trade acts, practices against those, and general marketplace oversight. So, we do not do anything currently within our Department that evaluates curricula, instructional quality, educational outcomes of any educational entities.

This is entirely outside of anything that the DCCA currently does, and which its mission and core functions involve. So, we did note in our testimony that back in 2015, there was a working group that was assigned through a Concurrent Resolution back then for there to be some discussion between DCCA and DOE about this very matter.

And as a result of that, the working group came out with a report, I believe it was in 2016.

And basically, the problem was, which was identified from DCCA's standpoint, was that because you're not really talking about a large number of licensees or licensed schools, the cost recovery model that we would have to impose would end up increasing the financial burden on these small schools' providers because of the way that our structure works as a self-funded department. You know, we would have to increase licensing fees in order to cover the expense of regulating and providing the licensure for these schools.

So, if—right now, I believe there's only 16 schools. So, if you do the math on this, I mean, if we would have to incur the expense to develop the structure, the infrastructure and the resources, to be able to now regulate this program, we would have to divide that up and set licensing fees that would probably make it somewhat cost prohibitive.

And then, typically, the way schools operate, those get passed on to the students. So, the more that it costs to obtain a licensure through our department, the more that's going to increase the cost to get that education from students. So, it just—it's just a mismatch.

It makes no sense for it to be placed within DCCA, and I'm available for further questions.

Thank you. Department of Education in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Members of the Committee. I'm Heidi Armstrong, Department of Education. We do stand in strong support, as shared in our written testimony. In addition, I would like to share that the Department has no preference over which agency or which entity these responsibilities are assigned to.

The Department stands firm that these responsibilities don't fall under the scope of the work of the Department of Education. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on zoom would like to testify. Members, any questions?

Do you have any questions?

All right, department fight. Can I get you guys both back up here? So, yeah, let's start with DOE. How many—the Bill would transfer all of the positions from you, from your section that licenses these vocational and training schools, to whatever other Department we put it in, UH, DCCA, another Department.

How many positions are we talking about here?

It's not even a full time position.

Okay, so it's just one half, like a 0.5 FTE. Who does it?

An employee in our Office of Curriculum and Instructional Design.

And they do something else with the other? Okay. How much of their day do you think is taken up by this? Because it's just 16 schools. So, I mean, is it a true habit?

It is 16 schools. And we don't vet their curriculums. We're processing their licensing papers. Our message is that we're the Department of K-12 Education. We're issuing licenses for massage schools and haircutting entities. Helicopter...

But how much is—this an employee working 20 hours a week to do this every week or?

I mean, I, I have the employee here. She can tell how many hours she works.

I'm not the one that does the licensing, but he does work 20 hours a week. We also do exemptions for schools that come to us that don't need...

Is it really taking 20 hours a week? I mean, or is it just 20 hours of his time needs to be dedicated to this on the books kind of thing? I mean, how much—I just want to realistically know how long this takes. Just 16 schools, I mean, that's.

20 hours a week.

20 hours a week.

20 hours a week for 16 schools a whole year? That's a crazy amount of time though. I mean, no?

So, it's not only overseeing the 16 schools. Right? So, again, schools come for us for exemptions, schools that have closed before. Also, students come back to us to ask for their licenses for closed schools. So, we keep records for closed schools that have happened in the past. So, we've had, at times, right, like 40, 50, 60 schools since we've had this responsibility since 1939. It's currently 16 schools.

So, he does take care of not only the 16 schools, but past students, past exemptions that we might get.

I just used a very advanced calculator on my computer. I mean, 20 hours a week, 52 weeks, 16 schools. Granted, there are other things too. At 65 hours per school that this employee would have dedicated.

It's not a significant amount of time and that's not our issue. Our issue is that the whole content of this falls beyond the scope of K12.

Understandable. But what I'm trying to gauge is whether DCCA or UH has a legitimate claim on how much time it's going to take them to do, if you were to transfer it to them. So, what I need is a realistic estimate from you folks how much time this is actually going to take.

Because that's what you're tossing to another Department, right? So, that's what I'm trying to give. So, if it really is 65 hours per school, okay, then, but that's what I know we're going to be saddling DCCA or UH with.

To give you a correct number, we'll go back to the actual employee and say out of that 20 hours, what is devoted to these responsibilities, and we can get that back to you right away.

Okay. DCCA then. I don't think it's probably really a full time, part time, full.

I think our point is this is not something we license or regulate, an educational, you know.

We're talking about vocational, technical training. I mean, you guys do.

But it's not something we do. We do—we don't license.

We license individual—individuals—in those particular professions, but we don't license or regulate an educational, you know, school, and we don't, we don't do that. So, I mean, we are really talking about having to stand up something that's significantly different from anything our Department does. And it really doesn't really fall within our core mission.

But you can steal their, I mean, not their person, but you can steal their process.

Okay, well, I mean, I understand that, but I mean, when I'm looking back at, and this is why I did mention the 2015 working group, because this issue has come up before, and I think it had come up at that time, probably for the same reasons. They're saying, you know, this isn't, we—we're focused on K through 12.

This isn't something we do. But they've been doing it. I think when I'm looking at that study, they've been doing it a long, a very long time. And so, when it comes up in 2015 and they have a working group on it—DCCA and the DOE had a working group discussion.

And then, when I'm looking at what their different, of course, recommendations, basically DCCA is taking the same position I'm taking here today, that it really doesn't fall within our wheelhouse to do this, and it isn't really impacted in terms of consumer issues, very minimally.

So, DOE, at the time, had indicated—of course, they did say that it's misaligned with their primary mission and acknowledges that it's not compatible for them to continue to do this regulatory program. But when they discussed if oversight should remain status quo with them, this is what the DOE said they would seek.

And among the things that they cited was to basically increase the fees for the licensing and to request startup general funding of approximately $100,000 per fiscal year for two years to create and establish a PTVT program office with personnel and operating costs.

Okay, so, this is a report that goes to the Legislature in 2016. 2017, I believe it was noted in the testimony, in their testimony, I think it's Act 164.

So, in 2017, in Act 164, this did provide for establishing, I guess, a higher licensing fee schedule and among other things, provided for that $100,000 and another position, a particular one position. I mean, so these are things that happened in 2017.

There was no mention at that time about it needing to be put in some other Department somewhere else, other than the DOE. So, this is what happened. 2017, that's what we had.

So, it seems to me, and I understand it's a continuing issue that it's not within their core mission, but certainly, it is not something to be placed with DCCA. So, that's our position on it. It doesn't make any sense.

And because we are specially funded, we do not rely on any general funds, in order to be able to pay for this, to have the expense of being able to regulate this and stand something like this up, this is going to have to come from what we charge for the licensing because that's how we fund our operations.

So, that's difficulty, that's what we talk about, how this is going to increase the cost to attend these schools. And that is what, to me, would be actually harmful in terms of workplace concerns.

Isn't this one of the reasons why we should raise your...that haven't been raised in a decade, though?

That's a different question and we can discuss that some other time with regard to the licensing that we do of particular professions, but with regard to something like this, if this comes to us, this is what's going to happen.

If there are only 16, I think it's 16 schools currently licensed, this is going to be, it's a small group. And so, the cost of what it's going to take to be able to regulate and license these schools is going to have to be divided up among these six—16.

Wouldn't they from the electricians, you know, whatever trade is related to these trade schools? Why wouldn't it come from them? I think there's a.

I mean, I'm just saying these institutions, these are private companies. Now, whether or not somebody's going to pay for that is a different question.

But the—what we're going to have to charge is going to have to be based upon what the costs are, and the expenses are for us to be able to regulate this. This is the model—this is the model we work on.

Those are all private companies that are, you're, you're licensing. I, I don't—I guess I do see the nexus between that, I mean, continuing education, this is education. I, I, I'm not sure I, I, I quite buy the, there needs to be a separate fee sort of thing.

I think that probably could take it from other areas that where the trade or vocational schools are training in to license them. And it also doesn't seem just like a very heavy lift, that's all. And you folks do have the experts that—already in these areas.

Now, your point is well taken that they're not, you know, an electrician is not necessarily an electrician teacher. So, the educational aspect of it, I think, is different. But it also just doesn't seem like very heavy lift. I mean, it seems like you guys are fighting over something very little.

Well, I'm just saying, since it got placed with DCCA from when the measure began, and I hear DOE being very thoughtful about the fact that they're not necessarily saying they're leaving it up to the Legislature to decide what agency or department should handle this, but I'm here basically to speak on behalf of my Department saying we do not believe this fits within our core mission, and we would have a problem with having to figure out how to, how to stand something like this up because it isn't something we currently regulate.

I mean, if it's time you need, we can, we can set this for one year out and give you guys time to figure it out before it comes over to you.

No, I have a problem with—it's not a matter of time. So, I have, I have a problem with the concept of doing it and sending it over to DCCA.

Who should I go to then? Who's the next Department?

I'm not saying who it should go to. I'm simply not saying it shouldn't be coming to us. And I don't believe that's my responsibility to you is to say it should go to someone else and not us. I don't believe that is falling on me.

Well, I mean, if you don't want it to be you, then who?

Well, I don't know why—I don't even know why it's coming to us.

It's for the DOE's testimony.

Is the DOE saying that?

The DOE is saying—I believe you're saying that.

We're just saying it can vote it. We're not prescribing where it should go. We're just saying.

If not DOE, then surely the previous Committee put it with you guys for a reason. And I, I can see the logic there.

I, I don't know what was going on with the previous Committee. We weren't indicated to be the, you know, to be the transfer.

Have you spoken to the previous Chair about this?

To the Chair about why they amended the Bill to put it with DCCA? No, honestly, I haven't done that. But I am here to testify in opposition, and we do not believe this is appropriate for it to be transferred to our Department.

To the UHs? UH was the original, I mean.

I don't know what the, what the circumstances were and what UH's position was or how it ended up—who suggested it should go to DCCA. I don't know. I—we didn't track that. We didn't track the hearing. So, I'm not sure how this happened, but I'm here to say it shouldn't be transferred to DCCA.

Okay. DOE, can you come back up? Honestly, I kind of wish this had all been worked out at the Department level before it came to this. It doesn't seem like really a matter for the Legislature to try to figure out. That being said, you folks have been doing this for decade plus. How long have you?

Decades. Since 1939.

You did get more resources, as pointed out by DCCA. Have you—I mean, is this Bill kind of an admission that you haven't been doing a very good job for decades, or?

No, not at all.

When we look at K-12 education and what our scope of work is, and this isn't a new bill, it's come up before, and we're just sharing in our testimony that this falls outside—we have been doing it. We've been probably doing it very well. It falls outside of our K-12 mission.

I mean, arguably it does, right? I mean, DCCA did make a pretty good point on that. Anyway, I think my point is it sounds like no one wants it. It sounds like you guys are, I mean, by your admission, are doing a good job with it and it sounds like it doesn't require a ton of time.

So, I'm just wondering why there's this—what was the impetus for?

Because it's misplaced and it needs to find a different place. It's not the department's kuleana to say where it should go. The Department is saying it just doesn't belong in our department. It doesn't fit within our vision, mission, and our K-12 obligations.

Go ahead, rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Is it possible that your staff person who does, manages it now, can actually do a survey across what other states? Who is licensing vocational schools in other states? You know what I mean? Like, I feel like when we get to the that question or that answer, it's we're going to discover it's the DCCA.

It's an equivalent agency because these students are consumers. They're paying to go to these schools. Right? So, if these schools are fake and not giving them the skills to actually then put it into practice and make a living, then that's a consumer. That's like a scheme. That's like a victimizing scheme on consumers.

That's why I totally understand why it should be with the DCCA. But do you think your staff person can start gently surveying other states to get to this answer?

We do have.

It's a little bit better.

We do have some information on whether what other states are doing and it's in there, and.

It doesn't say where they were though. It says they were in separate boards and agencies outside of the respective departments of education. Do you have information to further clarify that?

Okay, yes. Thank you. Arizona has the Arizona State Board for Private Post Secondary Education Licenses. California has the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education.

What greater departments are these houses?

Minnesota has—pardon me?

What greater departments are these houses? I'm assuming these are not standalone just for this.

In California, it falls under with the State of California's Department of Consumer Affairs. In Minnesota, just says the Office of Higher Education in Minnesota does the licensing and in Oregon, the Higher Education Coordinating Commission in Oregon does the licensing.

So, it sounds like it is between kind of the university system and some DCCA-ish departments and actions. Are there any states that have it go through the Department of Education?

I don't have this in—this piece of information—but if there are, we can look and send that information to you. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to our next measure. HB 1889 HD1 relating to school psychology creates a school psychologist working group within the DOE to recommend actionable steps or proposed legislation for an immediate pathway to licensure for school psychologists that can be acted upon in 2027. DOE and support.

The Department stands on its written testimony and support.

Thank you. DCCA Board of Psychology offering comments.

Good afternoon. Christopher Fernandez, Executive Officer to the Board for stance on his testimony supporting the intent and offering comments.

Thank you. Hawaii Psychological Association offering comments on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Alex Lichten. I'm the Legislative Chair for the Hawaii Psychological Association. Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments. HPA does support the licensing or credentialing of school psychologists. We are an important stakeholder in the process but are excluded from the proposed working group.

In HB 1889 we were included in past bills which did not pass. Therefore, we are asking for an amendment to include HPA in the working group. Given the position by the school psychologists that they are part of the same profession and should be licensed by the Board of Psychology. That very much does affect us.

Regulation under the Board of Psychology means that school psychologists would be added to the Board of Psychology and thus act on licensing complaints against psychologists. Psychologists are not qualified to judge licensing complaints against school psychologists and the reverse is also true. These are two entirely separate professions.

The layman may be confused by the term quote school unquote in school psychology, we merely advocate for a scope of practice consistent with the school psychologist training to perform special education needs assessments and do counseling for commonly encountered behavior problems in school.

The best way to ensure that school psychologists are finally licensed or credentialed in Hawaii is to have all the key stakeholders in the working group. All of us need to work together towards that. And thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Hawaii Association of School Psychologists in support on Zoom

Members of the Committee. My apologies, I'm not feeling today. My name is Leslie Vonnik and I am the legislative Chair for the Hawaii Association of School Psychologists. I want to start off by saying I stand on my testimony on behalf of our organization.

We are not amenable to having the Hawaii Psych association, association or any other private organization have a say in school psychology. School psychologists were added at the doctoral level about seven or eight years ago and school psychologists, we were not included in that. Which is kind of interesting.

I heard something that the rep said in the last hearing when it's kind of been kicked back between DOE and DCCA and it's like, if not you, then who?

I started on the work group 15 years ago with the Y Association of School Psychology to get credentialing in Hawaii for school psychologists as we are the only state in the nation without one. We went back and forth between HSTB, HSTA, we even pursued, like talking to HSTA and looking at doing a union move.

It would require a labor law change in order for school psychologists to be with Hawaii Teacher Standards Board and be part of HSTA. So that was not a viable option, which means DCCA really is our only option.

Left with the psych pact that's come out with our national association, we're seeing more and more states offer credentialing for school psychologists under their similar organizations to DCCA. I am available for any questions that you might have for us.

I did write the first draft of this bill back in 2014, so this is something that I've been pursuing for quite a long time. Thank you so much inviting me to testify.

Thank you. Alec Marentic, individual and support.

Hello Members of the Committee. Thank you for taking the opportunity to testify about this bill. My name is Alec Marentik. I'm a school psychologist on the Big Island and I support this measure as is.

The National Association of School Psychologists is the ultimate voice in the scope of practice for school psychologists, which is why they are named in the bill. The Board of Psychology also is made up of clinical psychologists.

So I feel like the concerns as far as other psychological practices and where the boundaries of those scopes are would be well represented by the Board of Psychology. So I support this measure as is and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure. Seeing none Members, any questions?

Moving on to the next measure, the last measure, HB 1840 HD1 relating to education, requires the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board to develop an alternative pathway for a visiting international educator permit aligned to the duration of the Educators J1 visa program. FOIA Teacher Standards Board in opposition.

Thank you Chair Matiyoshi and Committee Members. We respectfully stand in opposition. I'm Mitsuhiga speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. We already have anyone with a J1 visa can already apply and get either a permit or license depending on their qualifications. So this path is already there.

We just don't, we don't have permits or licenses based on where someone is from. So we just have them for whoever qualifies. So there are J1 visa holders that have licenses. There are J1 visa holders that have permanent permits and they are moving to the licensure.

This bill basically when Hawaii Teacher Standards Board was created, it was created separately as a separate institution from the employer on purpose so there wouldn't be a conflict of interest. The Standards Board is set with the mission of making sure that our keiki have qualified qualified teachers in their classroom and there already is a path.

So we feel this bill is unnecessary. There's more information in our testimony. I don't want to go on and on, but just part of what our bigger concern, and we have it in our testimony, is about the J1 visa holders. It's not about this license.

It's more about loans that they got from private lenders in other countries to come here. That is a bigger concern. When we went to ncsl, that's what they brought up to us.

It happened in on the East Coast states first and then it came further over and now it's here and they were warning us that that is the bigger concern financially for these J1 visa holders.

But it's in my testimony and make sure that you understand though that our mission is to have highly qualified educators in our classrooms and we already have these paths available for anyone who applies and thank you. I'll be available for any questions.

Department of Education and Support.

After Vice Chair Members of the Committee. Tammy Chun, Deputy Superintendent the Department of Education supports this bill. Our J1 teachers there's 365 of them.

Currently they are able, because of the way that the licensing and permits work, these teachers are able to stay for three years in Hawaii even though their visa would allow them to stay for five years if we had a way for them to continue to be permitted.

So this bill would create a pathway for a permit for these teachers to stay for five years, which is the duration of their visa. I did want to mention that something that's really important is that the J1 teachers, like our other emergency hire teachers, fill positions that we do not have licensed, fully licensed teachers for.

We have not enough individuals who have a full teacher license available to fill all of the positions in school schools. So the question is, what's the alternative to extending our J1 teachers? The alternative, currently our current alternative is to recruit new ones, new J1 teachers or new emergency hire teachers.

When we don't have a licensed teacher or to have a substitute teacher. Those are not, those are not better options for us. Are the J1 teachers receive support when they come? They are receive training and they are evaluated annually. They are only continued if their performance is satisfactory.

So I'm happy to answer questions about this, but wanting to let you know one other thing is that the teachers, the shortages that J1 teachers fill are disproportionate to and disproportionate based on geography. So our neighbor island schools are very dependent in some areas on having these teachers.

So for example, we have over 100 J1 teachers in Central and South Maui. So the impact is very different on Oahu compared to the neighbor islands. And this is helpful to extending teachers who have already worked in our schools, been evaluated as as far satisfactory and are able to provide continuity and education for our children. Thank you.

Thank you. Teacher Lounge in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 1840 as shared in our written testimony. I am Jimmy Brazelton, Executive Director of Teacher Lounge, the sole visa sponsor partner of J1 Exchange Teachers of the Hawaii Department of Education.

This bill does not lower standards and it does not change licensure requirements. It simply aligns Hawaii's temporary licensure period with the existing 5 year J1 visa timeline. Similar to many other states, J1 visa is a federally authorized cultural exchange program, not a labor program. Its purpose is the exchange of teaching practices, global perspectives and educational collaboration.

These educators are not here to replace American teachers. They are here to contribute to and learn from Hawaii's schools. While meeting the same licensure standards required of all teachers.

Currently effective teachers who are actively progressing toward full licensure can be forced out after three years due to logistical barriers like testing access, scheduling delays, and the significant cost of multiple part exams. These are timing challenges, not quality issues.

Other states, including California and Texas, already allow participation for the full 5 year J1 period with no evidence of diminished teacher quality. This bill maintains standards, protects classroom stability, and honors the intent of the cultural Exchange program. We respectfully urge your support and stand by to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. The legal Clinic in support.

Thank you very much. My name is Amy Agbiani, I'm President of the Legal Clinic and this is Tina, our policy Director. We stand in strong support of this measure.

As the previous speakers have said, we're not changing, asking for changes in requirements for licensure, asking for an extension by two years which would meet the visa maximum of the Federal Government. I believe that currently we are this group. This program meets a need that Hawaii has.

There is a shortage of teachers and the teachers that are brought here actually have done very well. And from what I gather by talking to some of the principals and teachers, they do perform very, very well.

As a Filipino, I'm also very connected to the Filipino community and the majority, if not like 99.9% of the current J1 visa teachers are from the Philippines and I believe that they have are continuing to teach quality in a quality way and actually meet a community needs. So we strongly support this.

And if I may just add, we also submitted written testimony in full support of this measure and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. UH, College of Education.

Oh, hi, Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, Members of Committee, Nathan Maratha, Dean College of Education here at UH Manoa. And I'm here to also provide and answer any questions that the Committee may have with regard to this particular bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to test testify on this measure.

Aloha. Angela. Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES so in strong favor of this legislation because it helps immigrant teachers to create alternative streamlined permitting pathways for J1 visa holders, aligning the teaching authorization with the three to five year duration period of their exchange program.

And it removes barriers like for example the very rigorous state exams and it helps with providing greater job security for teachers to help with financial stability.

And so my mother came to the United States on a student visa, although she was a certified teacher in China and my grandmother survived the Cultural Revolution and the takeover of the Communist Party, she didn't teach perhaps probably because the licensing standards within between the foreign countries were very not flexible in this time period.

And so something like this if enacted, would be very helpful to immigrant teachers in this generation. Thank you.

Also anyone else wishing to testify? Just noting an additional 52,

Just Hawaii college of Human Rights. We're going to stand on our testimony and support.

Thank you. Also noting an additional 52 individuals who submitted written testimony and support Members. Any questions?

I've got a bunch. I just figured other people would too. DOE, what percentage of J1 teachers do not end up passing the practice exam and are not able to teach in the fourth and fifth years.

Well, currently they can't teach in the fourth and fifth years because the permits only allow them to get to the third year.

How did they were able to become certified if they passed the praxis and they could teach the four in years four and five?

So there's multiple steps to becoming a fully licensed teacher, which includes passing the practice, but it also includes going through the evaluation of coursework and there are challenges for in that process of the coursework being evaluated.

So how much coursework do they need to do in the first three years in order to teach in years four and five?

So it'll depend on how the evaluation of their international transcript is completed. And right now there's been challenges, so I can't tell you for sure.

So some might have all that coursework considered completed and some will start from zero potentially.

Actually, it's probably a better question for the teacher standard on that particular issue.

I guess what steps is DOE taking to try to ensure that these J1 teachers, or honestly all emergency hires in this situation are able to pass those three years and become a certified teacher?

So there's support for, there's some grow your own support in terms of providing some scholarships. So I'm going to speak more broadly about emergency hires. I'm not sure that the J1 teachers would be eligible or prioritized for those funds for tuition support if they need additional coursework.

There is also support in terms of some support for the praxis in terms of getting it done.

We just completed a survey of our emergency hire teachers and a lot of them have challenges in completing all of the requirements for license within the three year period and said more time would be helpful in part, some of it is time they're learning a brand new job.

And so the demands of the job plus trying to take the additional coursework and pay for the additional coursework is challenging. And we've done some deeper dives around the timing of some of the steps that teachers need to take and a little more time would help more of them be able to successfully complete towards

full licensure as doe. I guess there's two parts, right? There's praxis and then there's the coursework just on the practice exam. Does the DOE offer free courses to prep teachers for the practice exam? I mean, we do a bunch of prep for students to take standardized exams.

It kind of surprised me if DOE didn't do the same for us teachers,

I would need to check on that. I trying to remember if we do. I know there's some support, but I can't tell you off. I will get back to you about the type of support that's available.

And as far as coursework goes, I mean, I assume they would go through one of the universities in the state, is that correct?

For the.

Coursework.

So not specific to J1s or not specific to J1?

Emergency hires, but including J1s.

So including J1s, there are both in state and out of state programs that are approved by the Teacher Standards Board. There's a few that are considered, a few that are post baccalaureate, which would be probably the fastest way to getting.

I guess we should be talking to the Teacher Standards Board about this. That's fair. So what kind of options are available as far as coursework goes? Are there any online only options for the neighbor island?

Well, that's interesting because for J1 visa holders, if they already have a teaching license, like they've gone through a teacher education program in their other country, then all they need to do is take the praxis, certain praxis, usually three, to make sure that they pass and they're ready to be in front of our students.

So there isn't coursework. It's only when they have a bachelor's degree, only that's not in teaching. Then they may require the coursework. There's a few J1 visa holders that have had that, but most come over here with a teaching degree. But we want to make sure that they're in front of our students.

Most go in elementary and special ED. And so we want to make sure they pass the practice. And reading and writing seems to be the most difficult for them. The core reading and writing. That's the one. We recently saw an email that DOE was offering support, so I hope they are, because we've been pushing.

Just to give us an idea. I mean, is it like 90% of the J1 teachers that come over had a teacher certification and therefore just need to take the praxis, or is it.

Yes, I mean, they need to do that and they can. They have three years to do it because they can have an emergency hire permit for three years and then once they do that those years that they were in teaching, they will count toward their standard license, which becomes a five year.

Okay, so really the vast majority of the J1 teachers, the Praxis is the barrier. Is that fair?

Not a barrier, but yes, it prevents them from getting. Because we want to make sure that they're okay. To be in front of our. We had a mathematics teacher from another country that came here and she's put in a second grade classroom. It's like, ooh, ouch. I mean, because even here that would be hard.

So it's just to ensure that our students are getting quality teachers in front of them that are ready to teach those basic reading and writing skills. Especially since it's all mostly going to elementary.

So praxis. They pass the praxis and then they can stay for the full five years generally.

Then they can get a license for provisional license that can become a standard license after they've been here for three years. And yes, it will switch to a five year standard license.

And it doesn't matter if they pass in the first year or the third year. You still need those three years. And on year three you have.

Yes.

Are there any other alternative pathways available currently.?

For J1 visa holders?

J1 visa holders. I guess we could expand it to.

Emergency hire permits.

There's also a Hawaiian permit which is longer, but that's to help get kaiopuni teachers, like Hawaiian immersion teachers. So there is that.

Okay. Sorry, DOE did you want to add something?

I have to practice information.

Information and practice. We are currently offering free practice preparation for all J1 teachers. And so that's to prepare for the test. There's a cost for the test. When the teacher successfully completes, they can be refunded the cost of the test.

Okay, so it's only if they pass it they get refunded.

Correct. So they have to upfront the cost.

Is that program available for emergency hires as well? Is it just J1s?

Check. And I guess one of the things I wanted to make sure everyone knows is that the teachers are evaluated by school administrators annually. So based on classroom observations as well as other documentation teachers provide. So in terms of the quality, they are being monitored for the quality of their classroom instruction.

And again, I just would say part of the question becomes, what's the alternative to providing an extension to our emergency hire teachers? It means recruiting new people for the positions and then onboarding and training people.

It's a great segue to, UH College of Education because I think what we're trying to do here is patch a hole instead of healing the wound. And that's where you guys come in. Department College of ED. Are you still there? Yes, I am. Okay, so I feel like this is a tale as old as time.