House Standing Committee on Labor

I'm calling to order the House Committee on Labor. It is Tuesday, 03/17/2026. Time is 09:32am. We're in Conference Room 309. First on the agenda, we have SB 2382 SD One relating to law enforcement. First to testify for this measure, we have Ernest Ravello, deputy director for DLE in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Ernest Ravello, Deputy Director for the Department of Law Enforcement. We are in strong support of this bill. We have submitted written testimony. I just wanted to add a comment that, basically, this bill is just to ensure that we have con continuity of operations, and we we can we can retain our more experienced senior deputies.

Currently, we are at a disadvantage to the county agencies as well as private sector as well as others, state agencies. HPD, for example, hires a police cadet at 18 years old who make $75,000 a year. I just started a recruit class yesterday with 19 recruits that earn $55,000 and they are sworn will be sworn at some point and carry a gun. And yet, they make $20,000 less than the 18 year old. I mentioned this 18 year old police cadet gets $25,000 over a three year period as a as a bonus or incentive to stay with the county so they can continue to pawn as a law enforcement officer.

What we're asking is just a competitive chance to compete with these agencies and retain our our senior officers so we can stop the bleeding and try and get some time to get long term a long term commitment or opportunity to hire and retain better qualified, better aptitude of deputies. Thank you for this opportunity. I appreciate it. I'll be around for any questions if you have any.

Thank you. And apologies. I just jumped right into it. I would like to remind testifiers today that we will have a two minute time limit so that we can get through everyone's testimony. And if you are on Zoom, I ask you to mute yourself until it is your turn to testify.

If you're having technical issues, we'll try to get back to you if we have time. Alright. Moving back to testimony for 2382 s d one. Next, we have chief negotiator Jan Mutsul from Office of Collective Bargaining in opposition.

Good morning, Chairs. It's Jan Mutsul and Vice Chair Lee. My name is Jan Mutsul.

I'm the state chief negotiator and the sole member of the Office of Collective Bargaining. My testimony, like testimony I've given before, is in opposition to the bill, not because we are not in favor of the concept or perhaps the need to change the wages and salary schedules for the sheriffs or or any other public employees, but rather what is happening is an undermining of Chapter 89 passed in 1970, which provides for collective bargaining in the public sector, divides everyone up into into now 15 bargaining units. And this is the process the legislature found to be in the public interest at least then. What has happened is not only was collective bargainings come by interest arbitration where we originally had the right to strike, Now there are only three bargaining units left with the right to strike. Refused workers bargaining one, bargaining unit five, the DOE, bargaining unit seven, faculty of All the rest have interest arbitration.

Theoretically, the interest arbitration decisions final and binding on the state. What I am saying to you is you have this this bill is just one of many you're facing. You are at a crossroads in my mind of whether or not public sector collective bargaining as it was originally conceived will continue on. Now it's fine with me if you choose to say, you know, that was a great idea, but it's time has come and gone. Let them come on down here, lobby, move through, we'll take care of it.

I personally, after spending some close to 50 years here in Hawaii, do not believe that that is the best approach. It's not why I came here originally. It's because Hawaii was on the absolute cutting edge of public sector collective bargaining in The United States Of America. You passed a law in 1970 that no other state has ever gotten close to having as such a comprehensive bill including, you know, at the time to have a separate system for health insurance under the public employees health care system and then under ERS. Anyway, thank you for your time.

I apologize if I went over two minutes. Thank you. Sorry.

Thank you. Next, we have UPW with comments.

Sure. UPW stands for comments.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any comments? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB 3140 relating to the State Fire Council. First, to testify on this measure, we have director Jay Butai from DLIR in support.

Top of the morning, chair Sayama, vice chair Lee, Jade Butai for DLIR. We stand on our testimony in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any others here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we do have written testimony in support from the office of the state fire marshal. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB 99 SD1. This is relating to government. First to testify on Zoom, we have deputy attorney general Robertson from the AG's office in support or in person.

Yeah. Good morning, chair, vice chair. Good morning. Here in person, deputy attorney general, Ian Robertson. We've submitted testimony on this bill supporting specifically those provisions that would allow the department of the attorney general to, identify investigators in, labor shortage or difficult to fill positions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have director Michael Lambert from DLE in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, deputy director, Ernest Robello with the DLE on behalf of, director Mike Lambert. We're in support of this bill and just wanna make note that, we have submitted written testimony in support and but we have suggested we change the waiting period from twelve months to six months, related to this bill. Thank you for this opportunity. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Next, we have executive director Calvert Young from ERS in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning, chair, mister vice chair. So although the testimony is listed in opposition from the retirement system, it's actually based on our review by external tax and IRS counsel that the ERS has requested review for this and a number of other ERS related bills that have been moving through the legislature. Although it's in opposition, we are actually not opposed to the concept idea per se. But for all of these return to work bills, there has been identified issues in the current statute and the languages that's being provided that touch the line in terms of how the IRS and the internal revenue code views the tax qualified status on public pension plans like the ERS. So within our testimony on page two, there's a number of areas, three different areas that the legislature should pay attention to in terms of potential amendments to help clarify on this bill that will help ensure the overall review of the plan document, which is the revised Hawaii revised statutes that governs the the pension program.

And one of them is specifically related to the bonafide break in service. So this will be counter to DLE deputy director's request to make it six months. The advice of counsel is that the statute should be unified to a twelve month break in service. There already is that level of, required break in service in the existing statute as well. Happy to answer any questions, if you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other person here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we do have written testimony in support from the judiciary, state of Hawaii, ERS. I do have questions for you. So as you indicated in your testimony, I think you wanted this particular bill to have a def define labor shortage requirement to the to be planned delineated, how would you recommend that this be defined?

So we we believe there's there's a number of ways that we could help further define. One is if there can be specific characteristics that can be identified for what is, quote, difficult to fill. Like, what would that actually look like? And then or and or an alternative is if the if the the if the definition can be for specific locations, let's say, certain jurisdictions or certain positions that can be more objectively measured. So that there provides a level of consistency and conformity in the statute.

So if people reading the statute as the plan document for the retirement system, it's more it's more precisely clear which positions can be declared difficult to fill for this return to work. Okay.

Would you be able to provide an example of a specific position, just a hypothetical, for example, within the DLE that would satisfy that requirement?

Yep. So if say for the school resource officers that the, you know, the builds would potentially try to pursue, that that, like, is the reason that it's difficult to fill because it's been, you know, tried to recruit or or a particular position has been outstandingly vacant or insufficient applicants, you know, those types of characteristics that when you read it, a HR officer at one of our jurisdictions could actually know how to apply this statute. Okay. Understand. Maybe we can work

Maybe we can work some language together.

Yes. Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. Members, any further questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. This would be SB 2245 relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees. First to testify on this measure, we have Robert Harris, executive director for the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, in support.

Aloha, chair Sayama, vice chair Lee. On behalf of the Ethics Commission, we're in support of this measure. As this committee is probably well aware, on a national level, there's been a lot of discussion about the revolving door and governmental service, stories of people being paid a fair amount of money to enter into government service in order to enact or work on matters that were central to the private employment. This is a level headed and reasonable attempt to address that by not restricting people in any way from entering from private service into government service, nor does it prevent them from working on matters that may have been involved with their prior client. It specifically sorry.

It doesn't prevent them from working on, issues that their private client may or may not bring in, but it tries to identify specific matters. So if they worked on a contract, if they worked on a transaction, and now in our government service, it's asking to recuse themselves from acting on that specific matter for a defined period of time. In addition, this matter also, I think, addresses a, oversight in that it identifies or addresses, permanent employees of the government governor's office and adds them to the post employment restrictions that are already in place. I do have, and I apologize if it wasn't in our written testimony, the proposed amendment. We are trying to make sure that there's as much flexibility as possible here.

The proposed amendment would be inserted on page two after line 19, which allows the hiring of someone or someone to work on a matter that was expressly identified in the employee's official job description at the time of hire, provided that the matter was disclosed, or otherwise known as a primary responsibility of the position. So for example, if somebody had expertise working on a wildfire and the estate needed to hire that person to bring on knowing that they had engagement or involvement with a private employer, they could do so by putting it into the job description and specifically stating that that's what they want at the time of hire. I have copies of that if you need another copy of the proposed amendment. Thank you. Be here for any questions you might have.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we do have written testimony in support from the Legal Women's Voters of Hawaii. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item, SB 2466. First to testify on Zoom, we have, Shelby, Pikachu billionaire for the Ohana Unity Party and support.

What's up, guys? Good morning, everyone. Pikachu Shelby. We're gonna be live for all of you guys. So I wasn't able to send my testimony all the way in advance.

I know I sent one, but they you guys watched the recent office of elections meeting. They're breaking so many laws. I individually emailed all of you guys during this hearing so you can see all the laws they're breaking, every single HAR, HRS, all that stuff. So all the laws in this bill are reasons for cause to fire the chief elections officer. Yes.

You should fire them because they're already breaking the laws. For example, article two section four of the Hawaii state constitution made in 1978 says, when the primary ballot, you cannot be forced to choose a party. However, every time they're doing this on purpose. Now in Latin, this is called mens rea, not knowing that you're guilty of the law. Actis reas is Latin for knowingly breaking the law.

So in the commission meeting, you're gonna see they have no chain of custody. They have no protection for Honolulu, Maui, 0. So there needs to be accountability, and that's why I support this bill because you guys have the power to do it. And then there's they only bicker all the time. So I support this bill because there needs to be accountability, and you can review all the emails to see all every single law they're breaking.

Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate you guys. Have a great day. Aloha.

Thank you. Next, we have Jamie Detwiler, from the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you. Please proceed.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women. We stand in strong opposition to s b 2466. The current statute appropriately addresses the requirement for holding the chief election officer accountable to execute elections in accordance with state and federal laws. I've been a participant, an active participant, in the Elections Commission's meetings since 2021.

That's five years. Recent Elections Commission PIGS, otherwise known as permitted interaction groups, reports have found HAVA, the Help America Vote Act Hawaii state plan violations, and missing chain of custody records in all four counties. The HAVA violation, excuse me, has been placed in place since 2004. This could impact federal funding that Hawaii receives from HAVA. These reasons would justify the consideration for the removal of the chief elections officer.

In s b 2466 it creates a one year probationary period and allows for termination for cause. If terminated for cause, the chief election officer can appeal. He can leaving the role vacant while an acting CEO steps in. This situation would significantly disrupt elections. The existing At will termination process allows the elections commission under HRS 11 dash 7.5.

It allows the commission to quickly convene, review candidates, and promptly select a highly qualified individual for the position. For these reasons, please vote no on s b 2466.

Thank you. Next, we have Ralph Kushin Cushnie, individual in opposition on Zoom.

Yeah. Hi. My name is Ralph Cushnie. I serve on the Hawaii Elections Commission. I oppose any proposal that would make it harder for the commission to remove the chief elections officer.

The commission recently asked the legislature to authorize an independent audit of the office of elections and the chief elections officer Scott Nago. Instead of supporting that request, lawmakers are now considering measures that would shield him instead. Let me address the elephant in the room. When legislators move to protect the person who administers the election system at the same time the commission is requesting an audit of the system, it raises a serious question. Is your priority accountability or self preservation?

If the individual responsible for administering elections that cannot be independently verified is not held responsible when serious compliance issues arise. People will naturally wonder whether elected officials are defending election integrity or defending the structure that keeps them in power. That leads to a simple question. Are lawmakers truly chosen by voters or selected by Scott Nago? Trust in elections depends on transparency, verifiable records, and accountability.

Any measure that weakens those safeguards undermines confidence. Until today, the Office of Elections has never been audited. Our elections cannot be independently verified. Scott Nago must be investigated, not protected. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next, we have Tara Gregory, individual in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Mahalo. Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Tamalia Gregory. I'm a community advocate focused on election accountability in Hawaii, including ongoing concerns regarding transparency, chain of custody documentation, and documented communications between the Office of Elections and the Elections Commission leadership.

I stand in strong opposition to this bill as it's written because it introduces ambiguity at a time when accountability is critically needed. I've been consistently attending elections commission meetings since 2024. Many of those last 45 sometimes seven hours. Two of them almost seven hours. And these concerns are based on what I personally observed, and they are supported by publicly available records, including archived meeting videos, recorded minutes, and widely circulated demonstrations that have raised consistent verifiable questions.

Under Hawaii revised statute section 11 dash 2.5, the chief elections officer is appointed and accountable to the Elections Commission. That authority already exists. So the question is why are we redefining cause specifically on page one, lines 10 through 13, instead of enforcing the law as it stands? It causes the issue. The existing record already raises serious questions that warrant review and action.

What we're seeing is not a gap in statute. It's a failure of accountability. So there's ongoing chains of custody, HAVA, NVRA, all the regulations that the previous testifier the previous two testifiers have spoken about. And members of the public have reported ballots being sent to deceased individuals, outdated or invalid addresses, instances of multiple ballots issued under the same name. At the same time, the Office of Elections has received, specifically Scott Nago over his tenure, over 30,000,000 in federal funding, and that goes to the testimony of miss Detweiler.

The recent PIG report, I just wanna give you numbers. 19,042 ballot discrepancy between what's reported in the USPS and the chief elections office. So we also found a UIPA request during a meeting that an email was sent uncovering collusion that instructed the clerks to sit tight and that We The People were just unnecessary noise. The Elections Commission is subject to the Sunshine Law. Maybe not this body with the Senate, but the Elections Commission is.

So when the actions or communications appear to occur outside of public meetings, it raises serious concerns. So the issue is enforcing the law, not cause. If this bill is to move forward, I strongly urge this committee to amend it to clearly define cause. Please include failure to comply with the state and federal election laws, failure to provide chain of custody documentation, and failure to maintain accurate voter rolls. Additionally, any determination of cause should require timely review and be conducted in a publicly noticed meeting with full transparency.

The people of Hawaii deserve better. I respectfully urge you to reject this bill as it's written. Mahalo for the time to speak.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? On Zoom? K. Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony in support from the League of Women's Voters Hawaii. 25 individuals in support, three in opposition. Numbers, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item, SB 2879 relating to taxation. First to testify on this measure, we have Gary Suganuma, director of taxation from DOTAX with comments.

Good morning, chair Sayama, vice chair Lee. The depart Gary Sugunamath, Department of Taxation. The department has serious concerns with this bill as outlined in our written testimony. This bill seeks to alter the way our department's administrative rules office is staffed and will also alter the matters that can be handled by that office. So if this bill passes, it will greatly diminish, the functionality of that office, to the detriment of the whole department.

And so let me explain. First of all, what the bill does is it allows the director to still appoint the rules officer, which is the head of that office. But it then takes away the ability of the director to hire the other exec positions, the administrative rule specialist. The rules officer now would be the only one that can hire them. So, for example, right now, we don't have a rules officer.

That position has been vacant since August. So that would put us in a position where we couldn't even fill the administrative rules specialist positions. And that that would be unworkable for us. So that's a problem. The other problem is that what it does is it strips the director's ability to basically have the exempt rules officer and administrative rules specialist perform other duties as director.

So right now, the statute, allows or says that the rules the exempt rules positions, they can work on administrative rules, adoption of rules, and then they can work on the issuance of tax memorandum and what we call tax information release, so written guidance. And then it says, and other duties as directed by me. But if I can't direct them to do anything else, then all they can do, if this bill passes, all they can do is written guidance and adoption of rules. Okay. Now it's important for you guys to understand that the administrative rules office is a very important office within the department because that office is filled with attorneys and other accounting or tax professionals that basically drive the law and policy decisions of the department.

So anytime there's a legal question, a policy question within our department, all the other tax administration programs look to the rules office for guidance. You guys come and ask questions about bills. You guys want us to draft bills, propose amendments to bills. Those are all sent to the rules office first, and that team will come up with language that we review and we get back to you. So if if they can't do those things, you know, I won't be able to have them help us prepare with, testimony for hearings.

I can't send them to come and testify for you guys. I can't have them do educational outreach like the tax workshops that we put on each year. There's a host of, tasks that I won't be able to have them perform anymore. It's and it's gonna hurt.

Apologies, director. Your two minutes is up. If you could please summarize your testimony.

Based based on the foregoing, I would ask respectfully ask you folks, to defer this measure.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, any any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB 2929 SD1 relating to public notice. First to testify on this measure, we have administrator Bonnie Kahakoui from the State Procurement Office with comments on Zoom.

Good morning, chair, vice chair. Bonnie Kahakui, administrator, State Procurement Office will stand by your written testimony providing comments and recommendations. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this matter? Seeing none, we have written testimony from the office of information practices with comments, support from the Liquor Control Commission, County of Maui, and office of the mayor of County of Maui, and also in support. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we will be moving on to SB 3090 SD1.

This is relating to making emergency appropriations for public employment cost items. First to testify on this measure, we have executive director Hakim Ouansafi from the Hawaii Public Housing Authority in support.

HPHA stands for this testimony in support.

Thank you. Next, we have comptroller Keith Regan from DAGS in support.

Hello, chair, vice chair. DAGS stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next, we have director Seth Colby from BNF in support.

Good morning. BNF stands on his written testimony and is available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have the Hawaii State Hospital from Department of Health in support. Not here. Next, director, Tommy Johnson from DCR in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, Melanie Martin, deputy director for administration. We stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have executive director Lianne Gillispie from the Office of Youth Services in support.

Good morning chair, vice chair. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next, we have UPW in support.

Morning, chair Sayama, vice chair Lee. Public work group. You have our written testimony in strong support. We would ask well, what's not in our testimony is we would ask that if, the committee makes any amendments to this bill that they preserve the language regarding the DOE and as, negotiated settlement agreement on page one, lines thirteen and fourteen. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. We'll be moving on to SB 3096 SD1. This is relating to employees as retirement systems, employer contributions for normal cost and accrued liability. The first to testify, we have executive director Calvert Young from the ERS in support.

Thank you, Chair. Mister Vice Chair. The ERS supports this bill. This bill will increase or proposes to increase the employer contribution for police and fire members under the retirement service plan. The need or the necessity to make this increase is due to, that particular population within the entire group of population of employees, their lack of progress towards the, eventual full funded status.

So without this additional employer contribution, we will put at risk these particular employees from achieving full funded status on their pensions relative to the larger population. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to s b 3097 s d one. This is relating to the exemption from civil service of executive personnel from the employees' retirement system. First to testify, we have executive director Calvert Young from ERS in support.

Thank you, Chair. Mister Vice Chair. This bill, the ERS is in support of this bill. There's these three positions that are identified in the bill, the, deputy executive director, the chief compliance officer, and the information security officer actually already exist within the, ERS system. But the bill would propose to, reorganize these three positions so that they are more, closely and appropriately aligned to the discretion and governance of the board of trustees.

So for that reason, the ERS supports this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Any other persons here

to testify on this measure? Any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB 2088 SD1 relating to health care plans for workers. First to testify, we have director Jade Butay from DLIR in opposition.

Aloha, chair. Vice chair, I'm Jade Butay, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in opposition. While the intent to expand, health coverage for nontraditional workers is praiseworthy, DLIR is not the appropriate agency to design and manage an insurance program. We don't have the specialized insurance expertise, and we don't have the legal staff to that is familiar with Erisa compliance and the system to design and manage an insurance product. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Insurance Commissioner Scott Psyche from DCCA, with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Okay. Justin Chu with the Insurance Division. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Director of Government Relations, Walden Au from the Hawaii Medical Services Association with comments.

Morning. Chair Lee, Walden Au on behalf of HMSA. We appreciate the intent of the measure expanding access. We share many of the concerns brought up by DLAR as well as BCCA. Our main comments stand on just making sure that if this were to pass through, that there would be market stabilization mechanisms. Also, questions about the subsidy component and as well as enrollment periods that would apply to traditional health plans. Thanks Thanks for the opportunity to be available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have, HAHP Public Policy Committee from the Hawaii Association of Health Plans with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Rachel Wilkinson on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Health Plans. We're gonna stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, any questions? Questions for DLIR? So I understand you do have, some concerns, about this bill and this proposed policy, and the hypothetical that this does pass and this insurance program or policy is established, what kind of employees do you imagine would benefit from this policy?

I think nontraditional, you know, gig workers.

What what kind of employees what what kind of non gig workers does the state employ for that matter? Or is this gonna be more for private employees?

I think it would be more for private.

Okay. And that would be for what kind of industries?

You know, the gig or drivers, you know, DoorDash.

Okay. So the and then this program, in theory, would provide them with some coverage. Correct. Okay. And your concern, as you mentioned, was violation or potential conflict with, existing federal ERISA laws as well as, as well as.

We don't I mean, our role now is is basically oversight and regulatory. I mean, we're not in the, you know, we don't we don't operate any health plans.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to s b 2140 s d one. This is gonna be relating to county labor standards. Just to testify, we have director Jay Petai from DLIR in support.

I'll stand on our SD1, please.

Thank you. Next, we have director of public affairs, Andrew Rivera from the Pacific Resource Partnership in support.

Thank you, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee. Andrew Pereira with Pacific Resource Partnership in strong support of SB 2140. Just wanted to add really quickly to our written testimony that PRP currently has several active investigations on two different islands of what we highly suspect are cheating contractors. So these are contractors that are not only exploiting workers, but also not paying their fair share in taxes, which, as you know, we depend on to service the people in Hawaii. So obvious that we need another tool in our toolbox to catch these cheating contractors and, lay Labor County standards will help us achieve that goal and also assist organizations such as PRP as well as federal, state, and county agencies in catching these cheats.

So thank you very much and strong support.

Thank you. Next, we have doctor of strategic campaign, Ted Kefalos from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in opposition. Not here. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we do have written testimony and support from the operating engineers local three, opposition from General Contractors Association of Hawaii, support from the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters, opposition from, Maui Chamber of Commerce.

Any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to SB 2567 SD2 relating to petitions to temporary restraint and enjoined harassment of an employee. First to testify, we have staff attorney Nicholas Servison from Judiciary State of Hawaii in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Thomas Berger, staff attorney for the Hawaii Supreme Court. The judiciary stands in strong support of this measure. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have superintendent Keith Hayashi from the Hawaii State DOE in support.

Aloha, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, [unintelligible] testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. The department appreciates the change of language for public servants to include all Department of Education employees. We stand by for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have executive director Randy Perreira from HGE in support.

We'll send them to our testimony in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure?

Sorry. I'm not quite sure the again, Hamakana, I I apologize for the oversight. We did not submit testimony, but we do strongly support this bill.

Keith. Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, we

Do have written testimony in support from Department of Human Services, office of wellness and resilience, University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, and an and an individual in support. Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to s b 2593 SD one relating to law enforcement standards board. First to testify on this measure, we have Chair Adrian Dhakhwa from the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Adrian Dhakhwa from the Law Enforcement Standards Board. I'll stand in support of my country. Thank you.

Next, we have administrator Victor McCraw from the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board and Support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'd also like to stand on, my written testimony and direct your attention to the three specific reasons, for exemption and exclusion of these three, specific positions, and then the reasons why listed under each of those. The board pays particular attention to, reasons for opposition. The only other written testimony I'd like to point out the fact that it states that the bill would remove certain positions within the law enforcement standards board. Nothing will be removed.

There these positions are not filled. As a matter of fact, we're waiting for the, culmination of of this legislation to finalize these positions with DHRD, to make sure that we're absolutely accurate in describing what these positions, what their duties are. So we're not removing anything. These positions will be originally established. It's outside of of the, purview of

collective bargaining and for the reasons stated, to avoid any conflict of interest. And everything the board does should be objective and, not come under scrutiny either legally or for any other ethical questions, once the board makes a determination on who and who should not be certified as a peace officer in the state of Iraq. I appreciate your time, and I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Next, we have executive director Randy Perreira from HGA in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Nui Sivassar, HGA. I will stand on our testimony in opposition to this measure. I do wanna make two points though. Chapter 89 already has criteria for excluding employees. So we would kinda urge the board and, I guess, DHRD to to go through that process.

The HLRB does serve as the final adjudicator in determining the exclusion or inclusion of employees. The second is is addressed to our is addressed to the civil service exemption. This proves that that this bill further legitimizes the DRDC workaround where departments or in this case bore a board will work around DRD to kind of fill positions except from civil service because our civil service hiring is is slow.

I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess recess. Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll be taking a short recess recess.

Calling is coming back to order for decision making. First, we have SB2382SD1000000 to law enforcement. My recommendation is to defer this measure as I am concerned that this bill violates or at the very least conflicts with collective park existing collective bargaining laws. Members, any comments? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to s p 3140 linked to the State Fire Council. We'll just be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SP 3140. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Garrett? Aye. Representative Coppella? Aye. Representative Khan? Aye. And representative Ray's order is exchanged. Thank you, chair. Recommendations are adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 99 SD one relating to government. I'll be deferring decision making on this measure for now. I'd like to work with ERS and DOE to figure out the language that would satisfy the concerns brought forth by ERS testimony. So, again, deferring decision making to another page.

Next, we have SB 2245 relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees. I'd like to adopt the Hawaii State Ethics Commission suggested amendments, just because there weren't written in their written testimony. I'll just read it out loud. We'll be inserting into page two after lines 19 on a matter that was expressly identified in the employee's official job description at the time of hire provided that the matter was disclosed or otherwise known as a primary responsibility of the position. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000, and knowing technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

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

Thank you, chair. Voting on task 82245. Recommendations to pass with amendments. You're in the excused actions of representative Reyes Oda for the duration of this hearing. Are there any reservations? No votes. Thank you, chair. Recommendations to the document.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2466 relating to the chief election officer. My intention is to move this measure forward, but instead of putting this language into HRS sections 11 dash 7.5, we'll be moving the bill into Section 11 dash 1.6, which governs the appointment and removal of the chief election officer. I believe this is a more appropriate section, for this bill to live in. We'll be dealing language related to the standard state probationary period as a chief election officer is not subject to the standard state probationary period, as they are employed without regard to civil service law.

We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000 adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 2466. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Yes, sir. Representative Kong, reservation. Any no votes? Thank you, chair. Recommendations have been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2879 relating to taxation. Recommendation is to defer this measure, noting the concerns, from DOTAX, how this bill would impact, their operations. So we'll be moving on to next SB 2929 SD one relating to public notice. For this, we'll be substituting the language in this bill with language from its companion, HB 2388 HD two members and adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair voting on SB 2929 SD one. Your recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? There is no votes. Thank you, Chair. Recommendations are adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3090 SD one. This is relating to making emergency appropriations for public employee meant to cost items. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 3090 SD one. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, Chair. Recommendations are adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 396 SD one relating to the employees' retirement systems, employer contributions for normal cost and accrued liability. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 3096 SD one. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, Chair. Conventions been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 397 relating to the exemption from civil service of executive personnel of the employees' retirement system. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 3097 SD one. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, Chair. Recommendations were adopted.

Moving on to SB 2088 SD one relating to health care plans for workers. While I do share some of the concerns expressed by DLIR's testimony, we'd like to move this bill forward to continue our conversation relating to these types of benefits. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000 and adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2088 SD one. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Representative Kong with reservations. Any no votes? Thank you, chair. Recommendation to adopt them.

Thank you. Next, we have SB 2140 SD one relating to county labor standards. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000 with technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2140 SD one. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, chair. Recommendations been adopted.

Thank you. Moving to SB 2567 SD two relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and then joint harassment of an employee. Working with the drafting a house majority drafting agency, we've concluded that we could delete reference to the definition of public servant as public servants of the state already excludes other individuals not expressly provided for in this section. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000, adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style just to make sure and clarify that this amendment would not narrow the scope of those who are covered under this bill. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2567 SD 2. Recommendations to pass up amendments. Reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, Chair. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next and finally, we have SB 2593 SD 1 relating to law enforcement standards board. We'll be adding a defective date in July 1, 3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Moving on s b 2,593 s b one. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, chair. Recommendation to the document.

Thank you, members. This hearing is adjourned.