Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Great afternoon, everyone. Happy aloha Monday. Will the Senate committee on labor and technology please come to order? This is our 03/16/2026, 3PM agenda, and we're in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii state Senate's YouTube channel.

Just a few housekeeping announcement announcements. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on 03/18/2026 at 3PM. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand in your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content including the hearing notice, copies of the measures, and testimony can be found on the legislature's website.

If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from all those offering testimonies. First up on our list is House bill 2472 HD one. This is relating to the Hawaii Employer Union health benefits trust fund staff salaries. First up on our list, we have James. We don't have anyone registered to testify.

Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on h b 2472? K. If not, members, I'll just note that we do we did receive testimony from James Wataro, chairperson for UETF board, also TUI, HSTA, and Christian Fern from University of Hawaii professional assembly, all in support. K. Being that there's no one else that wishes to testify on this measure, questions on this, no one to ask questions of.

Move on to our next item, which is House bill 2276 House draft one relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefit Trust Fund investment office staff salaries. The only registered testifiers is assistant administrator Donna Tonaki. EUTF stands on written testimony support. Thank you. Anyone else on House bill 2276?

If not, members questions? If not, we'll move on. Our next item is House bill 1664 House draft one relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. First up on our list is director Colby from B and F.

Yes. Good afternoon. B and F proposes bill and stands on as written.

In opposition. Thank you. Brenna Hashimoto, director, DHEARD. K. DHEARD offering comments and concerns. Thank you. Kamakana, Kamilo, UPW.

Chair, UPW's answering testimony and strong support.

K. UPW in support. Thank you. Nui Sabas, HGA.

Hello, chair. Vice chair. HGA will stand up as testimonies.

Testimony support. Thank you. And that's all I have. I registered to testify on House Bill 1664. Also submitted testimony in opposition is Jen Musto from the office of the collective bargaining, the chief negotiator. In support also, we have is also Tui and Christian Fern from University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, and Melissa Pavachek for Schopel in support. Anyone else on House bill 1664? If not, members, questions? I do. Senator Morawaki?

I don't know who to ask this of, whether it's the union or it's, HRD or BNF. But, this the testimony that comes in says that, there's no dispute mechanism for the EUTF trust fund. Is is there what is the problem? What what oh, okay.

Thank you. So what is the problem that we're trying to correct here?

Aloha.

So, currently, at least, that was You

can identify yourself, please.

Nui Sebast, legislative manager for HGEA. The current negotiating process, does not have a dispute mechanism mechanism. So for HGEA, we can proceed to interest arbitration, if there is a disagreement between us and and the state. So that's kind of

that's the issue that

So so in response to the opposition from the the state, where, you know, you have one bargaining unit that may be going through arbitration, and it may have an impact on other bargaining units. And what is the consistent application across the state? Because we gotta pay the bill.

Yeah. Yeah. Senator, I, I I recognize the the the employer's concerns. I think for us, we just wanna continue the conversation about about EUTF and the lack of it not being negotiable, and we're certainly open to possible solutions.

So it is negotiable, but that's the the mechanism for disputing.

Yeah. So if I could maybe just plainly say it's it's a one-sided negotiable. So a lot of times, we are left with what the state will offer in terms of the employee employer split.

So this requirement of an arbitrator that probably doesn't know all the, I guess, the complexities of, you know, all the different bargaining units, what do you folks have any comments? I mean, we can continue to discuss it. But, you know, in terms of moving moving anything forward, have has there been any discussion on what could be a good resolution that you do have a dispute mechanism that might not be just an independent arbitrator that doesn't really know the state?

Senator, I don't have an answer for you at at this moment on on that.

I mean, I think that's worthy of discussion if we're gonna go forward on something like this. Because I I think everything requires some kind of mechanism for disputing, how one arrives for a decision. So I don't know, what the answer is either, but I was just hoping that there might be someone, the UTF, the State, or the HRD, or BNF. But I hope that that conversation continues. Yeah.

That's all. Thank

you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to our next item, which is HB 2,272. This is making emergency appropriations for public employment cost items. Director Colby?

We are in support of the still incident on a written testimony.

K. In support. Thank you. Anyone else on HB 2272? If not, members, questions? Okay. For this item and the next item, director Colby, do you know which bargaining units this covers? I know you have 11, but what specifically is 11?

What specific is 11? Sorry. I don't know that.

Fire. Fire. Yes. Fire. Yes. Okay. Thank you, firefighters. Thank you. K. If no further questions, we'll move on. HB 2273 making emergency appropriations for public employment cost items. Director Colby in support.

In support. K.

Thank you. And then mister Sabas, HGA. Stand in support. Thank you. K.

And to clarify, bargain unit 14 would cover HGA members? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on HB 2,273? Okay. Members, questions? If not, we'll move on. House bill 1655 house draft one, relating to public employment. First up on our list is Director Colby.

Yeah. He now currently closes the spell. Okay.

In opposition. Thank you. Colbert Young, ERS executive director.

Thank you, chair, members. Good afternoon. Just wanted to take the opportunity to come up and express on behalf of the board of trustees for the employee retirement system. We have submitted testimony in strong opposition to this measure. Just to highlight, few seconds, this approach would be detrimental to the employee retirement system in the state of Hawaii and all of its government employers.

This would pose a tax consequence that has been reviewed by external tax counsel. From an operations and administrative standpoint, it would be nearly impossible to to actually apply and administrate a program in which 1516 bargaining units each individually negotiated for retirement benefits for members across five different jurisdictions. For that reason, we're gonna express, opposition on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Young. Kamakana Kamilo, UPW.

Hello, chair Elefante, vice chair Lamasau, senator Moriwaki, Kamakana Kamal, government affairs manager, United Public Workers. You have our written testimony in strong support of this bill along with some of our brothers and sisters and our other exclusive representatives. Just from what we've seen before, right, what we're asking for is just to make retirement benefits negotiable. Right? Part of the scope of negotiations.

The catastrophic future that ERS paints, we think is a far reach from what we're asking for here. The likelihood is that any exclusive representative who would try to negotiate retirement benefits would have to stick to the same parameters and external pressures that ERS describes. Right? And as we've seen with the ETF, just because it's negotiable doesn't mean it's negotiated.

Thank you.

If you

could please summarize.

Thank you.

Thank you. Noise Abbas, HGA. HGA will stand on

testimony support.

Okay. Thank you. That's all that I have listed to register to testify either in person or on Zoom. In addition to that, we also have Jane Musto, chief negotiator, office of collection of collective bargaining and opposition, in support, also Tui from HSTA, and then also in support, Christian Fern for OOPA in in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers on HB 1655.

Anyone else that wishes to testify in this measure? If not, members, questions? K. We'll move on to our next item, which is HB 1656 house draft one. First up is Keith Regan, comptroller DAGS. Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. K. Thank you, Alan. Written testimony offering comments. Kamakana Kamiloa in support.

Chair, vice chair, member. Again, Kamakana Kamiloa, United Public Workers. You have written testimony in strong support of this bill. We think this bill is fair and that it at a minimum, it it wipes away what we the provision the swipe what we call the swipe provision, which would, allow the employer or to basically pull back any any indebtedness of a thousand dollars or less, which is doing so is honestly hurtful for our members who just were basically overpaid. Thank you.

Thank you. Noi Sabas, ACGA.

Eric Shield, standing in support.

Standing in support. Thank you. That's all that I have listed to testify either in person or Zoom. In addition to that, I do see someone from the state library's office. Do you wanna testify? We did get it. Oh. Offering comments.

Yeah.

Offering comments.

Okay. For those

specific comments.

K. Thank you, miss Fujitani. We also have Andy Kawano, director of BNF B BFS offering comments for the city and county of Honolulu, and Christian Fern from UPA in support. That's our list of testifiers for HB 1656. Anyone else on this measure? If not, members, questions? K. We'll move on to our next item, HB 1658 house draft one, related to collective bargaining. First up is director Hashimoto. Okay.

D Heard in opposition offering amendments. Thank you. Kamakana Kamiloa in support. Written testimony support. Thank you. Nui Sabas.

Issue of

Okay. Standing on testimony support. That's the list of registered testifiers. In addition to that, we also have Nola Miyazaki, director of HR at City and County in Honolulu, in opposition. Hosotui from HSTA in support. And that's it. Anyone else on house bill 1658? If not, members, questions?

Yes. Senator Moriwaki?

I do.

H j nui. So I can see that the the importance of repricing and being able to come to the table and how it might take too long for us to get to the table. Right? So, so but giving it to a single arbitrator who may not know all the complexities of the state system, I know that there's been discussion that that maybe I think it's in, the testimony that the appeals board might be a better place to to actually have that kind of discussion and at least somebody that knows the system. What would the union say to that?

Thank you for your question, senator. Nui Sebastia for HGA. We're, we're opposed to the concept of the Merit Appeals Board. It's a employer controlled board. I believe the employer has

two There's no. I think there is an employer and employee. There's a representation.

True. Yes, senator. So there it's my understanding that there's three members. Two are selected by the employer, and then one is a is a is a labor representative. So I would consider that an employer controlled board. And so we'd be opposed to that just on on the impartiality of of a board kinda making decisions on this.

So you think a single arbitrator that doesn't know the system would be a better representation of, what you folks are looking for?

I think, generally, yes. And we're happy to agree with on a list of arbitrators, that can be used for repricing, for within this process. And that that issue came up in 2024 when the original repricing bill was was passed, and we also brought that up back then.

K. Thank you. Thank you. I could I ask a dehird?

Yes. Any questions for mister Abbas? K. Nope. If not, thank you. A request for director Hashimoto. Senator Morawaki, you have the floor.

Thank you. Can you respond to, HGA's comments that it's, it's a employer control board, and why would we want to have Merit Appeals Board versus an arbitrator, single arbitrator?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. So the merit appeals board already hears appeals on initial pricing. So they're already charged with looking into pricing issues if there are any disputes when a position, a class is initially established and their and the pricing is disputed. In addition, the Merit Appeals Board, by statute, has to be individuals who are familiar with state civil service.

So, like you pointed out, there is a union representative on the on the appeals board on the MAB, as well as, an employer representative. And then the third party is a neutral, third party. So I would dispute the fact that they are employer controlled. They are operate although they're administratively attached to DHRT, they operate independently. We don't we don't involve ourselves in their decision making, and I think the record of their decisions will reflect that they are very fair and impartial and oftentimes rule in the unions in favor.

So, who selects them and how long is their term?

They are appointed for four year terms. There's no limit on how long they can serve, and the Governor appoints them.

And it's from, a list of, a list of, I guess, a list from the employer, a list from the unions in in the, the members—I mean not the members, but the candidates for selection?

I believe the union representative is someone who's nominated by the union. I'm, I'm not very familiar with how that individual is, is pushed forward, but I believe it's, someone who's nominated by—I'm not sure which union or if they if they have a consensus among them, but it has rotated between HGA and I remember a, a former UPW employee who was on the map. In terms of the Chair, I, I don't know how the last one was selected. That individual recently stepped away. So, the, the neutral chair position is vacant at the moment.

Okay. Thank you.

Could I ask a follow-up to that? Would you agree that we need to take a look at pricing for classifications in civil service across the board still?

Yes. So, we are embarking. We just had our first set of on-site meetings last week with a vendor who's doing our comprehensive classification and compensation study. So, we're looking at all of the, the MQs, the classification, the whole structure of civil service right now. But I would, I would caution you to not confuse repricing, which is an internal alignment issue amongst classes of work within the same bargaining unit by statute with don't confuse that with recruitment, retention challenges, market conditions.

It has nothing to do with the actual amount that a job is paid. It's all about internal equity and being able to defend the state against charges of or violating equal pay for equal work provisions. So, it's very technical. It, it requires a lot of analysis, not only with the job that's the subject of a repricing request, but other jobs in that bargaining unit to make sure that they line up, that there's comparisons between those classes of work. It doesn't have anything to do with external factors like recruit—recruitment—like retention, like market conditions, market you know, the, the labor pool.

I think a lot of the requests that we're seeing are other factors that are not repricing, and that's why it's so important that we have somebody who's knowledgeable about classification and the factors that go into the pricing to make these decisions because they're, they're not related to most of the reasons that we're getting repricing requests.

Yeah. No, and I understand that. And I think part of the concern that's coming from the advocates is some of the pay structure within the current classes doesn't equal what's being paid out on the private sector on the market level.

Again, it does—it's blind. It has nothing to do with what the actual dollar figures are that are associated with the job. That is collective bargaining in terms of how much we actually pay. So, it, it's not a reflection or doesn't take into account market conditions, you know, lack of applicant pool. It's really all about this internal alignment.

And is a job, the duties and responsibilities, comparable to other jobs in the bargaining unit? That's, that's all it is and based on our classification factors. And, and it's being misused or misrepresented as this you know, we're trying to pay market rates, and that's not what pricing is.

Understood. Thank you. Yep. Senator Moriwaki.

So, can you explain again then what price repricing is? Because if it's within the bargaining unit, then then there should be more flexibility within the bargaining unit. And they're looking at what the jobs and the, the, what, what are you comparing versus we need more pay for this group?

So, let me give you an example. Say a bargaining unit 13 job. Basically, if it's an SR 20, which is, kind of the initial kinda independent worker level, you'll see a lot of state jobs at the SR 20 authorized at the SR 20 level. So, it's like accountant three, human resources specialist three, social worker three, whole bunch of program—budget analyst three. All of those jobs that are SR 20 basically have comparable level of responsibility, comparable authority, comparable decision making, and similar expertise required in order to, to do those jobs.

So, to pick one of those out and say, okay, for social worker three, we're gonna reprice it and, and make it an SR 22, then there's not alignment. We don't have equal pay for equal work because that particular class of work is now being paid more than other similarly situated jobs with similar duties and responsibilities, level of complexity, subordinates or level of supervision exercise, all of those things that go into determining pricing, there's a disconnect when we pick out one particular class of work in that bargaining unit and make it higher. There are other tools that we can use if their pay for some reason is not competitive in the market.

We have things like shortage. We have we can do a separate salary schedule for that. We did recently for engineers and architects where the market was much higher. So, we took those out of the typical salary schedule and, and did it. We negotiated with HGA to have a, a separate salary schedule for those classes of work.

So, there are other pay programs that are available to address when compensation is not aligned. But it's, it's inappropriate to use this classification metrics to achieve something that's related to compensation, not classification.

So, do they have a pathway for compensation increases? Because that's what I think I'm hearing from the union is that they wanna pay certain groups or maybe more, more salary. And, and is that route available for classes within their bargaining unit?

So, that's—pay, pay is one of those things that's that is negotiable. So, typically, though, when we're, like, in the middle of a contract period, most of those types of, of requests for, say, shortage come from departments because they have to absorb those costs because it comes out of their budget. It's only when we negotiate a contract, then departments get a collective bargaining augmentation to their budget, based on what's been negotiated with the union. But, in the middle of a, a bargaining unit then contract, then, usually those requests come from the department in the form of a request for shortage.

Thank you.

Any further questions? K. If not, thank you, director. Okay. We'll move on to our last item, which is house bill 1661 house draft one relating to cafeteria plans. Director Hashimoto. Sorry. I should have just asked you to just you could stay there if you wanted to.

Providing comments.

Yeah. Providing comments. Thank you. Kamakana Kamilo, UPW?

Sure. UPW stands for written testimony in support.

K. In support. And Nui Sabas?

Cherry Shields, stand on testimony in support.

K. HGA and UPW, both in support. In addition to that, we do have testimony offering comments from Nola Miyazaki, director of HR at City and County of Honolulu, and Tom Yamachika for the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Anyone else on HB 1661? K. If not, I have a question for director Hashimoto. So I know now that you could do this through your rules and do the maximum contribution. Is that correct?

Yes. We we can.

And that's what the herd is planning to do.

We had planned to do that for next fiscal year. We this current fiscal year, we just moved are in the process of moving to a new third party administrator for this program. So it's kinda we're sort of too late in the game in order to effectuate a change for the coming year. So any any change would have to be effective next fiscal year.

Because currently, you're you're not doing the maximum salary.

We are not. The last time it was increased, I believe, was in 2019. I think it was in 2019. So we are we are a little behind the market, and some of that is a is somewhat intentional. We you can see in the, the chart that we provided in our testimony, we are careful about not, having more, overspent accounts than forfeitures.

We try to make sure that we're we monitor that so that the fund doesn't, run a deficit. So that you can see from our testimony, the second year of the between 2023 and 2024, we actually did pay out more in overspent accounts than we had forfeitures that year. So we we tend to monitor that and then make adjustments every three to four years. This one has been a little bit longer than usual to make an increase, and that's generally why. So we we sort of monitor the the fund balance to to make sure that we're in the Okay.

Block.

Thank you. Any questions?

No. I think

Miss, senator Moriwaki.

So you have to you have to establish a rule every time you you make a change. And so I think HGA's testimony was that there is a six month lag, and so that's where their their members, or I guess all employees get who are in the system, don't get the immediate benefit.

Right. Because the IRS sets the new maximums on a calendar year basis, but our plan is administered on a fiscal year basis. So, even though the IRS may raise the rates January 1, those new rates can't take effect because of our plan. The way our plan is administered, we can't, authorize any midyear changes. The IRS does not permit that as part of the rules.

Once you once you designate an amount, it has to stay that same that same rate for the entire plan year. And then you can make changes during the open enrollment period, which then becomes effective on July 1.

So what is the basis for your decision on updating your plan? Because you said 2019. That's kind of a long time, even now.

I think you said for '20 starting next year, 2027. Okay.

July. But I mean, from the time when you last updated the, the maximum. Was that what, you said it was 2019?

2019. I think was the last time.

So why did

it take so long in terms of when do you update it? So do you do it, like, annually? Is is IRS updating their maximum and we need to be working on that?

We do it every few years, not not annually. Because we have to do a rules change, which is I'm sure you're probably familiar. It's pretty cumbersome to do. So we don't do it every year. It's been, I think, every three or four years. This has been a particularly long time since the last one, but part of that was because of a new, administrator.

K. Thank you, chair.

K. Thank you. I just have one follow-up for mister Sabas from HGA. So two part question. You heard from director Hashimoto and and what they mentioned about calendar and fiscal. So currently now it has a the bill has a defective date of July 1. But if this bill were to move along and the legislature's intent to put a clean date, would July 1 or effective upon approval be what what would be HCA's position on that? Yeah. That

we would be amenable to that. I think in reading, DHEARD's testimony, they requested for, an approval date of 07/01/2027.

Yes.

And that's something that we're amenable to.

Okay. Yeah. And then I also there's some late testimony from Tax Foundation relating to the specific code in IRS and the maximum amount, and HCA would be okay with that.

Yes. I yeah. I I believe we'd be okay with that.

K. Because currently, it has maximum to the IRS IRS, but doesn't have the specific Oh, the specific. The specific section in IRS. So I think we should make that a little more clear. Yep.

We'd be okay with that.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions?

You can Senator Moriwaki? For HRD.

Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Director Hashimoto.

I didn't quite understand. You're saying that there's forfeiture and you wanna leave some cushion, I guess, to pay off, the forfeitures. Is that a big amount that we should be concerned about or can we just go with the IRS, maximum?

So the way the flexible spending program works is at the beginning of actually during the open enrollment period, an employee can elect to, have a a certain amount of their pay, right, set aside pretax to pay for either medical or dependent care. And, but it doesn't especially for the medical. I think the dependent care, they can only get reimbursed, as they contribute funds. But on the medical side, even if they were to say they an employee elected $1,200 a $100 a month for the twelve month plan year, They can get that reimbursed to them on their pre tax dollars even after just a month or two into it, so they haven't actually made those $1,200 of contributions for the full year. But even early in the plan year, say July or August of this year, they can go ahead and get reimbursed.

So they're getting reimbursed that amount before they've actually made the contribution. And so and if they were to separate and leave state service before they've actually made all of those contributions, then that's when the plan has, a forfeiture or sorry. Yeah. A forfeiture, of overspend accounts because we've actually paid out benefits, but we haven't collected the money from the employee. So that's what we're very concerned about, is making sure that the plan stays solvent and that we, monitor those, negative forfeitures.

So there's no Really? There's no nothing in IRS that allows you to to do that, to to set it aside?

No. On the dependent care side, they can only get reimbursed as they issue receipts. Right? But on the medical side, they can actually get the full reimbursement for the whole plan year at early on in the the plan year itself. They don't have to wait until the end or until they've made those contributions in order to get the reimbursement.

Mhmm. Thank you.

Thank you so much. K. If not, last call on house bill 1661 h d one. K. If not, members on we do have a quorum. If you're okay, we'll roll into decision making. Are you ready, vice chair?

Yes. K.

Okay. So first up on our list is House Bill 2472, HD 1, relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund staff salaries. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay, Members. Voting on HB 2472. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Oh, with amend... Oh, I said... Oh, it's unamended.

Unamended.

Okay. Well, perfect. Yeah.

Wanna redo that? Okay. We'll redo that. Okay. So recommendation, reconsidering it. The Chair, the Chair's reconsidering its previous decision on HB 2472, House Draft 1. Chair noting the presence of Senator Ihara, we'll take a revote. Recommendation is to pass as is, 2472.

Okay, Members. Voting on HB 2472. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next item is House Bill 2276, House Draft 1, relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund investment office staff salaries. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Voting on HB 2276, HD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair also votes aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Our next item is House Bill 1664, House Draft 1. This is relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. Chair's recommendation, this bill does have a defective date. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members, voting on HB 1664, HD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Noting the absence of Senator Fevella. Anyone present voting with reservations or no? Hearing none. Chair, all Members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Our next item is House Bill 2272, House Draft 1, making emergency appropriations for public employment cost items. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. For HB 2272, HD 1. Recommendation of... Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended, noting... Sorry. Any Members present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. All Members present vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Next item is House Bill 2273, making emergency appropriations for public employment cost items. This is for Bargaining Unit 14. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members, voting on HB 2273, HD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. All Members present, Chair, vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. For our next item, HB 1655, this is relating to public employment. Seeing the testimony in opposition from ERS, Chair's recommendation is to defer indefinitely. Move on to our next item, which is House Bill 1656. This is relating to indebtedness to the state. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Members, voting on HB 1656, HD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. All Members present vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair. Our next item is House Bill 1658, House Draft 1. This is relating to collective bargaining. Chair's recommendation on this measure is to pass as is. Any further discussion? Yep. Senator Moriwaki.

Yes. I think I'll just go with WR because I really believe that every pricing requires a little bit more than just an arbitrator. It's the Merit Appeals Board or some kind of organization that can provide that kind of technical expertise.

Thank you. Concerns are noted. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay, Members. Voting on HB 1658, HD 1. Recommendation of the Chair is to pass unamended. Noting the reservations from Senator Moriwaki. Anyone else wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none. All other Members vote aye. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, vice chair. And our last item is house bill 1661. This is relating to cafeteria plans. The Senate version companion to this did not advance. So this is the only vehicle live related to this, issue.

So chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We're gonna accept the tax foundation's proposed amendments in their testimony. And then in the committee report, we're going to indicate if the next committees were to re review this, that if they're looking at a clean date that 07/01/2027, would be recommended by this committee and that the IRS calendars differ from the state fiscal calendars. So that portion will be in the committee report. K.

With that, any further discussion? If not, vice chair Lamosao for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Members were voting on HB 1661 HD One. Recommendation of the chair is to pass with amendments. Anyone present wanting to vote with reservations or no? Hearing none, all members present vote aye. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. That concludes our business for today. We are adjourned.