House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is 2:00 PM, March 17th, here in Conference Room 325. We're here for the purposes of hearing numerous measures or Senate bills that have crossed over. If you're testifying today, if you could limit your testimony to two minutes, I'll ask you to wrap it up at that point so we can get through all the testifiers and be able to go to decision making. We've got a new microphone system and sound system in the room.

They're up in the ceilings here. So, just stand at the podium, speak normally, articulate, and it should be able to pick up everything you say. But here's a little hint. It picks up everything you say to your neighbor also.

So, keep the side conversations to yourself unless you want everyone on YouTube to hear you. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you're testifying, and then turn it on for that, but turn it off when you're finished with your testimony. If you have technical issues on Zoom, please use the chat function to communicate with our excellent technical staff, and they'll do their best to help you. If you're disconnected unexpectedly, don't panic.

Just rejoin, and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony if we have time. In the event of a power outage or whatever here in the Capitol, and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice, so you'll know what we're gonna be doing when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, which is a problem. And when you're testifying, you know, it's okay to disagree.

Just don't be disagreeable. Please no profanity or uncivil behavior. Then we'd all be able to do our job better. Thank you very much for being here because as testifiers, you help the legislators do their job better. So, I appreciate you being here, everybody.

Okay. Let's go ahead and get started. Senate Bill 2055, Senate Draft 1, related to civil rights. This measure requires the Civil Rights Commission to establish a 24-hour intake outline for individuals to submit reports of harms from federal deployments in the state. It requires civil rights commission to compile an annual report, hold an annual public hearing on data obtained through the helpline, requires Civil Rights Commission to compile and submit to the legislature and post on its website a monthly preliminary report on data obtained through the helpline and appropriates funds for a number of positions.

First up, we have—thank you. First up, we have Civil Rights Commission on Zoom.

On Zoom. Yes. Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. My name is Marcus Kawatachi.

I am the Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I'm appearing today on behalf of the commissioners of the Civil Rights Commission, and you have our testimony in support of this measure. There are three things I'd like to point out and, but as a little bit of background, we feel this is a great idea, not our idea, but, but a great idea. But once we receive this bill, we did have some concern because operating—creating and operating a helpline is not within our wheelhouse and experience. So, we actually have started to have discussions and collaborate with Aloha United Way.

And we got that idea because we're aware of the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations has a similar type of setup, and they work with a couple of help lines that are California Verus Hate and LA County Versus Hate. So, Aloha United Way and then these entities, we all met yesterday as an exploratory meeting. And so, some of what we discussed was not included in our written testimony because we had the meeting just yesterday. But the three points that I would like to make is that, you know, we think it's a great idea in order for it to work, and I think for us to effectively serve the public, there are some things that we would request and have concerns about.

Number one, the bill asks for this to be a 24-hour helpline. That seems like it's a pretty difficult thing to achieve. And when we talk to Aloha United Way, what we would like to do is, if they're agreeable to all that, is to have usage of their 211 helpline, which is an existing and the state's only comprehensive health and human services information and referral hotline. And so, their hours of operation for live calls are nine—7 AM to 10 PM. So, in terms of having live responses, we think that perhaps there might be limitation, at least initially, to something like 7 AM to 10 PM.

We could take in calls and messages and have them return as soon as possible during the operating hours. So, that's number one, the 24-hour aspect of it. Number two, there's a concern about the possible effect on federal funding that we, and also Aloha United Way, receive. And, I mean, this is specifically about federal troop deployment, federal law enforcement, and immigration enforcement operations in the state. It's a bit on the nose, I mean, in terms of, maybe drawing the attention of the Federal Government.

And so, our request would be to expand it to the civil rights issues and civil rights violations in general, broaden it a bit. Those could include the things that were specifically enumerating the bill. So, that's two. And we do have a concern about federal funding, and that also was sort of an issue that was raised when we talked to the folks in California. Number three, the request would be that there'd be an appropriation for considerable amount of funding.

And I know that this is a pretty bad time to consider that, but I think in order for us to have staff, have, you know, collaborations with various entities, we would need that funding for us to be an effective thing and to serve the public. So, happy to answer any further questions you might have.

Real quick question. Well, how much funding?

We had asked and I mean, this is really kind of ballparking. Right? We don't know what it will take to create this helpline. It was personnel cost—annual personnel cost ranging from 350,000 to 400—430,000. So, that would be anticipating five additional positions of various types.

We had sort of ballparked also 500,000 per year to ensure—or contract funding with the Aloha United Way 211 system that already exists. That's to ensure robust coverage and support services. Also, sort of initial website and database development cost estimated between 70,000 and 225,000.

Great. Thank you. I just wanna make sure everyone understood what you had put in your testimony, which is very helpful, because we need to know how much this is gonna cost to actually do it properly. So, thank you very much.

Yep. Thank you.

Certainly. Next, we have the State Health Planning and Development Agency, in support. Not present. Next, we have Shelby Billionaire on Zoom. Not present. He's in support. Next, Advisor Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Chair, we're gonna stand on our written testimony in support.

You have to come up to the podium so everyone in TV land can see you and hear you say that.

Very nice.

And you say you support.

Yes. We are the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights representing about 30 immigrant-serving organizations across the...We're gonna stand on our written testimony in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify, Michelle Bartel, Aloha United Way.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Michelle Bartel. I'm the President and CEO of Aloha United Way. We provided a testimony with comments. We are very supportive, and we really believe that it's important for our state to have a helpline that's gonna, you know, be an avenue for folks to report civil rights violations.

I do wanna highlight as well, as you heard from the, the Civil Rights Commission, we do have some concerns about the 24/7 live helpline. We do feel that we can solve more ways for people to continue to report 24/7, but they would not reach someone live from the hours, while we are staffed from 7 AM to 10 PM. It would get a live, a live information and referral specialist who can also connect them up with other services, which is one of the reasons why we feel that it's, you know, 211 statewide helpline really is probably the perfect vehicle to provide support for this and reporting. The concerns about the 2/47 and also broadening it to make sure that we're talking about all civil rights violations to provide folks with that avenue. Other than that, we're very supportive, and we feel that we'd like to see this move forward and appreciate the consideration of the committee.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your good work at Aloha United Way. Next, Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Hi. Yes. Thank you. I'll stand on my written testimony as well. Thank you for your support of this measure.

In support. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2055 in the room or on Zoom? Yes. Come on up.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, committee members. We submitted our test—sorry, Josh Frost of the ACLU. We submitted our testimony probably very late.

Yeah. I got it from Mandy. Yep.

Yes. So, it's, it's—our testimony is very short and sweet. We stand in support of the bill, and we would also support the request made by the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Great. Thank you, Josh. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure in the room? On Zoom? No? Okay. Any questions, members? A question for, Ms. Bartel, if I may. So, thank you for working with the Civil Rights Commission on this idea. That wasn't their idea, but everyone thinks it's a good idea, and trying to make it work. So,right now, you currently get phone calls that are related to civil rights violations. Is that true?

We do not, per se. No. Folks know to call us for other referrals. There may be folks that call who we refer them to, you know, various legal rights organizations, but that is not.

That's not a common phone call you get?

It's, it's not currently.

Not, not currently a common phone call. Right. Okay. Do you, do you know if you were to get one, such a phone call where you would refer? Do you have those resources?

We do have resources to immigrants.

Sure. Yeah.

Okay. Great. So, if you do get a call, you know who to refer the individual to?

We do.

Okay. Great. And then the second question is just on the mechanics.

But can I go back to that point?

Of course.

Because this is totally anonymous, we would not be able to provide specific reporting if that's something that was needing to be provided later. We can say how many referrals we've provided to those.

It's just.

The organizations. Yeah. But it wouldn't be—the, the data would not be collected in such a way that we'd be able to provide any real meaningful reporting on it, if that makes sense.

Well, it's not identifiable data. You can't—you don't identify it with an individual.

Right.

It's anonymized.

It is totally anonymous. Yeah.

Okay. Great. On the operational side, so from 10 PM to 7 AM is a recording. Is that right?

So, yes, you can, leave a message and get a callback the next morning. We can also, through our IVR, which is our, you know, automated press 1 for, you know, to make a report, press 2 to leave a message, we could set it up so that we can refer people directly back to an online intake form.

Ah.

So, we could provide some other measures for people who are able to self-serve through that IVR. So, they would—it wouldn't just be limited to leaving a message and getting a callback the next morning.

Got it. Do you do that now—refer people to an online intake form or anything?

We don't have any programs like that set up right now, but it's easy enough for us to do.

But that's something you can contemplate doing. And then it, okay.

Yeah.

Okay, great. That's all the questions I have. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you very much. I appreciate your willingness to continue conversation about this measure.

Thank you.

Okay. Just checking. Okay. Thank you.

That's okay. That's okay. You've got an agile mind. You're still working. It's all good. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much for the testimony. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2247: Senate Draft One relating to political fundraising by executive branch employees.

Sorry.

This measure prohibits any executive branch employee who is nominated or appointed by the governor to a compensated position, subject to confirmation by the Senate, from engaging in certain campaign fundraising activities. First up, we have Campaign Spending Commission on Zoom? In person. Oh, there you are. Of course.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Board Members of the Committee, Christy Chang, on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supports this bill. We believe it will help prevent the pay-to-pay practices that we've been seeing as well as or at least the appearance of that and represents a step towards including, public confidence in government.

Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Harris, Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Happy Saint Patrick's Day. The State Ethics Commission is in support of this measure. It was created or drafted in response to the widely published allegations of a senior executive member hosting parties and connecting contractors to candidates. And so, the attempt here is to try to create a common-sense bright line, particularly focused on, again, senior executive members to ensure that the allegations or concerns about procurement and the decisions between procurement are not tied to political fundraising.

Keep the opportunity. If you have any questions, I'll be available.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2247? If not, questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 2442 Senate Draft One relating to purchase of service contracts by the judiciary. This measure, beginning 01/01/2027, requires contracts for services awarded to community-based organizations by the judiciary in support of fulfilling its statutory mandate to individuals, families, and communities in the state to include certain protections against inflation. It appropriates funds to the judiciary to increase the contract price in existing contracts for certain services provided by community-based organizations in support of fulfilling a statutory mandate to individuals, families, and communities in the state. First up, we have the judiciary with comments. Welcome, Mr. Kimura.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair of Hawaii, members of the committee. Brandon Kimura, Administrative Director of the Courts. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this measure. We support in general the intent of the measure to provide additional financial assistance to the providers.

They are absolutely an integral part of the justice system and the mission of the schools. That said, we do have some concerns with the structure of the measure. Most specifically, in that it would provide an automatic increase in appropriations or in, excuse me, it would provide an automatic increase in the contract value.

You wish it had an automatic increase in appropriations.

Without a mechanism for the automatic increase in appropriations. Yeah.

And that's our most significant concern. We do have other smaller concerns that we've shared in our written testimony, more mechanical such that, just as an example, we're not opposed to the portion that generally would require contracts for multiple years, though we'd point out that there are certain instances where contracts for shorter than that period might be ideal such as a pilot project. But we're not opposed to the concept to the extent that the intent of the concept is to support the providers and provide more stability and sustainability. So, other than that, I'll be available for questions. Great.

Thank you very much. Next, Kat Brady on Zoom. Not present. Next, Trisha Kajimura, Parents and Children Together. Hello?

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Trisha Kajimura from Parents and Children Together. We're a statewide social services provider. We have judiciary contracts specifically in the area of domestic violence. So, services such as anger management classes, parenting classes, counseling, and family visitation centers on Oahu and Kauai.

I wanted to share a little bit about our family visitation centers because they offer an opportunity for children and their noncustodial parents, an opportunity for a supervised visit in a safe center-based location where the parents do not meet. They're very underfunded, and we're facing difficult decisions about those centers and to whether we can sustain them given the funding in our contract. So, we ask you to please consider, this measure and the different solutions offered within it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Tracy Wilchin, Mediation Centers of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tracey Wiltgen. I am the Contract Administrator for Mediation Centers of Hawaii, which is comprised of the five community mediation centers throughout the state. We strongly encourage you to support this bill. It would mean significant support for our operations that have continued to grow over the years without an increase.

And in light of the challenging economy and funders now not wanting to fund anymore, we need to make sure that we can continue to support our services. So I'm here for questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Certainly. Thank you very much. Next, Elizabeth Kent.

Aloha. I'm Elizabeth Kent, and I support this bill because it will help nonprofits that work with the judiciary thrive, and that is good for the state and the individuals that they serve. I have great respect for the nonprofits that provide these services to our community, and I know that they help people in some of the most difficult times of their lives. I've worked with the community mediation centers in a number of different capacities for over thirty years, so I know them the best. And I have great respect for the work that their centers do and for their leadership.

Some of the cases that I've worked on as a volunteer, are among the most challenging that I've had in my career. As a small business owner, I know that it's difficult to run a business when you don't have a steady stream of funds and can't plan for the future and when cost costs rise, but your income doesn't. For years, I've watched the center strive to address these challenges, and they do, address them, and they provide quality services to the people in the community who really need those services. This bill could help them move from striving to thriving. I'm confident that the stability that this bill would provide and with the appropriate appropriations from the legislature, that they will be able to achieve that stability and to provide even more services that help our community, and I urge you to pass this out of the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Kent. Anybody else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2442? Yes, please. Come on up. Introduce yourself.

Board, Chair, Vice Chair, and I'm Betty Lou Larson with Catholic Charities Hawaii. We have submitted a written testimony. We just want to comment that, along with almost 80 other organizations in the Coalition, if we see agencies struggling, if we see that in some cases, our programs haven't received a contact increase in ten years, and that's really hard to retain staff. So, we really not only appreciate you hearing this bill but keeping in the portion that talks about inflation protections. This allows agencies to plan ahead, to know a little bit about what's going to happen in the future, and most importantly, to retain staff.

We all know that people are voting with their feet. They're moving out of Hawaii. We need to keep these dedicated individuals who want to serve the public, who have the skills to serve, to retain them by knowing that there will be monies there to keep them employed and to give a small increase at least for inflation purposes. So, we thank you very much for this bill, and we hope you will pass it.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify? Please introduce yourself.

Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poi Poi, and Members of the Committee. My name is Hannah Lisiak, and I'm testifying on behalf of the True Cost Coalition in strong support of SB 2442. The True Cost Coalition represents more than 80 community based nonprofit organizations, serving over 500,000 individuals in the state every single year. We deeply appreciate the funding that was provided in Act 310 last year, but there's one thing that I want to make clear. The federal funding cuts and freezes did not create a new problem.

They exacerbated an old one. Many of our member organizations, many of which you've heard from today, haven't received increases in their governmental contracts in over ten years. And we put out a survey for our members, and we determined that the cost of providing these services has increased by about 40%. These organizations are our safety net, and we have to ensure that this net does not fray. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I'm told online, Mrs. Cheney is, wishing to testify. Is that on this bill? Oh, no, it's on another bill. Are you wanting to testify on this bill, Mrs. Cheney?

Yes, sir.

Please go ahead.

Thank you. Yasmine Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I'll keep it brief. I feel like Elizabeth Kent summarized a lot of the points that I would make. The commission stands in support of this measure and the critical work that these organizations provide to the community. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Question, chair.

Yes. Rep. Shimizu.

So as one of the testifiers just testified with no raises. Are your vendors just holding their price with no increases year after year? Is that the situation?

Thank you for the question. To be honest, offhand, I do not have that level of granular detail because we have, I would say, probably about 30 to 40 contracts or so across the state that are in this category. I would not necessarily be in a position to dispute that as well. So, if the providers are sharing that, I'm not in a position to dispute it. Mechanically, when we issue the RFPs and, you know, we receive their bids and their assessment of what they're willing to do, except for the services.

So we could go with that. But that's, you know, that may be a challenging way to do it when we have nonprofit providers in this approach. I'm not suggesting that that's representative of what they need to cover their overhead either. Or if that's a response to your question, I can go back. But it would involve a fairly tedious- and we can and we'll do it if that would be helpful to you and the committee.

But of each contract- and when the increase went up year over year, I will say that in addition to the provider's, various costs that change year over year operating, whether it's insurance or rent or salaries or things like that. The services are also changing a little bit year over year as they're becoming perhaps more complicated, beyond just the volume of services that they're delivering. The nature of the services might change slightly if they decide to do additional testing for, you know, substance use, etcetera, if that's the question. So, it would be very difficult to compare apples to apples year over year. But in the general sense of are they doing more with less, I would defer to the providers to answer that question, and I wouldn't suppose that.

Do you know if as you create the RFPs, if those numbers are pretty static or are you adjusting them also?

The numbers in the RFPs or the nature of the services?

Just numbers because we're talking about monies at this point. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, when we draft the RFPs, we draft the nature of services and the scope of services, the types of population that we'll need to serve, or that we're asking the provider to serve, the kinds of service that that they will provide. The providers respond to the RFP with the amounts that they're willing to do that for.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a question. When you send out your RFP, do you, give any guidance as to the, allowable, budget that could be requested? You know, I'm just hearing from the vendors saying that, you know, these providers are saying our costs have gone up 40%, haven't seen an increase in ten years. Is that because they are not asking for what the true cost is, or is there are they following a guidance in the RFP so that they don't really ask what they need?

Thank you, Chair, for the question. I think that's a an integral one, and I frankly, I do not have that level of detailed knowledge. You could just find the answer or a provider who does it year over year may be able to help, but I don't know the answer to that.

Well, I think we'll see what the committee decides with this bill, but, you know, we're looking at it from the standpoint of the judiciary and how best to serve, the clients of the judiciary. And so, I think, you know, personally, I'm in support and I'd like to see this move forward. But the Finance Committee is going to have to really have a better idea about current practice. Clearly, they are, you know, we're hearing from these agencies that they are underfunded, and I'm just trying to find out why. And so, if you could go back and do your homework on that so that when it does, hopefully, get a hearing in Finance and that we can discuss this further, we can have a better idea about that.

You know, it is going to be a challenge to give an appropriation when there's not a set dollar figure because it's just pegged on, you know, consumer price index or inflation or something. But maybe there's a way to address some of these concerns by increasing the amount that you're willing to pay for current contracts, so that they're not so far behind.

One thing that we, have been preparing, Chair, in anticipation and as we've been discussing this measure internally is listing all of our contracts and the maximum amounts and essentially what would the dollar amount be if the legislature were so inclined to increase by a flat amount across the board, whether it'd be x percent or y percent and what that dollar amount would be. So, it's easier for the legislature to consider. So those are those are things that we have.

That will be helpful. But I think it might also be helpful for you to check-in with your vendors as a selected sample, perhaps, and talk to them and say, you know, what is your true cost? And try to get a handle on what that is. You as the, you know, contracting agency, I think that would be useful information for you.

You know? Because you want to make sure that they can continue doing this good work, and they can keep their employees employed so that they can provide the service to the judiciary. But it seems like, you know, I'm hearing from these agencies a cry for help. And I know from across the board, the economy is in tough shape and people will leave their jobs if they aren't compensated enough. And I don't want to see an exodus from these agencies that are doing good work for us.

Absolutely.

So, yeah, if you could follow-up on that, we'll see what the committee decides to do with the bill. But all those conversations, I think, are the ones that finance will need to have with you. And so, the better equipped you can be with that information, that would be great. Thank you very much, Mr. Kimura. Any other questions?

Absolutely.

For mediation?

Yes. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Cochran. For mediation. Hi, thanks for being here. And so, you mentioned that you folks have centers at in all the counties?

Yes, there's one on Oahu, one on Maui, Kauai, and two on the Island of Hawaii. And Maui handles services for Lanai and Molokai.

Okay. Excellent. And so, because they know county funds- Maui Mediation Services- so you get state funds, county funds, you get federal funds?

None of us get federal funds. Unfortunately, we were going to do that before things got bad. Not all of us get county funds. So, on Oahu, we do not get county funds.

So, each center is independent, and so we have different opportunities on our respective islands and then together under our umbrella organization, Mediation Centers of Hawaii, we have a contract with the judiciary. That contract is designed to cover the services that we provide for the courts, which is the majority of our cases, but we also serve a lot of cases from the community. So that contract covers Oahu; it covers approximately 11% of our costs and approximately 75% of our cases come from the court system. And, of course, the other cases we're keeping out of the court system.

Right. Which is good. And so, the money you get through the judiciary here, is that paid out to the other counties, or it stays here on this island?

No. So that's why I wear two hats. I'm the executive director of the Mediation Center of the Pacific. I'm also the Contract Administrator for Mediation Centers of Hawaii. And so we have a separate board of directors. The contract from the judiciary goes to Mediation Centers of Hawaii. Those funds are then distributed to all five centers.

Okay. And so I guess when we talk about funding currently, you said you're up to the 2010 funding level?

So our contract was the same amount of money until 2011, and it was cut by 20% like most of them. And so, we were actually less than currently. And then a year ago, the amount that was cut, that 20%, which was $80,000, was restored, so we're at the same amount as we were back even prior to 2011.

Okay. I was just trying to get a handle because I'm just sorry, Chair, but because Mediation Services, I know county helps fund that. And every year, we do either flat or an increase of 3%, typically there. So I can't speak for other counties who are here for this island, but, I know that the their services as a whole, as you say, there's different moving parts, but those moving parts collectively, I think, can address how much judiciary annually, if they had to do an ongoing, you know, calculation, could say x amount disperse in this manner or what have you. So, yeah, I it's going to be a challenge to figure out.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Thank you, mister Kimura. K. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill or Senate Bill 2499 relating to vacancies. This measure amends the processes for addressing party candidate and state senator vacancies. First up, Mr. Nago, Office of Elections.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this measure. This bill aligns the vacancy process with the Federal Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and allows us to meet the 45-day mailing requirement for that balance for overseas. I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2499 on Zoom? No. Any questions, members? No. Yes. Rep. Shimizu.

Mr. Nago. So this bill is extending the time given to you, 50 days to 57 days, yeah?. Just that seven days is going to be enough?

Yeah. So what we are required to do based on the federal laws, it goes down 25 days prior. And to do all of that requires us to print the ballots, program the machines, do all that. And so, it gives us more time to do all that. Previously, we could do that because we could hold up the ballots for that affected senate district. But with the systems we have, voting systems we have now, we're not able to do that.

So we'd have to force a full election just for that one, vacancy. That's why we're asking for the right time.

So, seven additional days is sufficient.

Not sure it's seven days. It's just a matter of when the timing happens.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2143: Senate Draft One relating to chief election officer. This measure establishes an order of succession for an interim chief election officer in the event of a vacancy in the position of chief election officer until the elections commission appoints a new chief election officer. First up, we have the Hawaii State LGBTQ plus Commission on Zoom.

Thank you, chair.

Okay. In support. Next, Michael Golojuch on Zoom.

Good afternoon. Again, Michael Golojuch Jr., he/him pronouns, president of Pride Work Hawaii. We stand in full support of this measure. Having continuity of government is imperative, especially when it comes to our elections. I was actually shocked to find out that there was no order of succession to certify our elections.

Should something happen, God forbid, to Scott Nalgo or any chief elected officer, we would have nobody to be able to replace them, especially if the elections commission could not figure out who to hire or hire somebody to replace them. So we also want to take this opportunity to thank the election deniers that caused such a havoc at the elections commission's meetings because had they not been doing that, this this problem would never been brought to light. It's something that I've heard about, some of us have heard over the years. But by the problems they cause there, they've helped bring this to light that we absolutely do need this. And I can't understand why anybody would be against making sure we have, somebody there to certify our elections, that we have a chain of custody as it were, continuity of government when it comes to our elections and making sure that they're certified in a timely manner so that we all can trust the results.

So, thank you for hearing this bill on behalf of Pride at Work. We are we stand behind it 100%, and we encourage you to pass it out. Mahalo for your time and have a good afternoon.

Thank you very much. Mr. Billionaire on Zoom, not present. He's in support. Next, Hoku Pak on Zoom, in support. Not present. Jamie Detwiler on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poi Poi, and members of the committee, Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican women. While we support the need for successor for the chief elections officer, should that position become vacant, We are in opposition to SB 2143, SD 1 because if it is passed as written, it would grant bureaucratic control and government authority to partisan stakeholders such as the General Counsel, who is listed as one of the proposed temporary acting chief elections officer. I would like to respectfully recommend the following amendments. One, include a specific time frame of thirty days for the elections commission to fill the CEO vacancy as described in the current law. Number two, remove the general counsel as a temporary CEO successor option due to a conflict of interest as the general counsel represents the chief elections officer in current legal proceedings.

May I respectfully remind this committee that the Hawaii revised statutes 11-1.6, the appointment of a Chief Elections Officer, shall be appointed by the elections commission without regard to Chapter 76 and shall be meet expeditiously to select and appoint a new Election Officer. In conclusion, please consider supporting future legislation for citizens to elect a Chief Elections Officer. We are the only state that doesn't do that. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your consideration and recommendation of these amendments. And, sir, Chair Tarnas, I would like to respectfully make a comment to address decorum, to criticize other people with different of opinions is not acceptable in this forum. I don't think so, but I will yield to you for that, chair.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I appreciate your reminder to all testifiers to maintain decorum and not throw cast aspersions on anyone else. So, thank you, Mrs. Detwiler, for that reminder.

Thank you.

Anyone let's see. Next person, Marlene Tom, Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network. Not present on Zoom? Nope. Arlene Tom on Zoom? No. Okay. Next is Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'll stand on my written testimony in support of this bill and appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you very not much. Doug Pasnick on Zoom, not present. Tara Gregory on Zoom.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes. I do hear you. Please proceed.

Alright. Great. Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Tara Malia Gregory.

I stand in opposition to SB 2143. While I really appreciate the intention of it, the way it's currently written, does need some meaningful amendments. I have been at the forefront of the election integrity conversation here in Hawaii since 2024, And there has, up until now, been little engagement from most leadership regarding this. I do understand the intent of this bill, and it is to ensure continuity with the office of elections during a vacancy. However, as it's written, it does prioritize internal continuity over public accountability by allowing automatic internal succession while requiring the commission to meet expeditiously.

When it comes to expeditiously, it's not a standard. It's just a suggestion. So this bill should be amended to require the commission to determine and appoint a new chief elections officer within thirty days of vacancy. The reason I say that is in the interim, any acting Chief Elections Officer should serve in a limited temporary capacity, so restricted to administrative continuity only with no authority to make permanent policy or procedural changes. At the same time, the elections commission should be required to conduct a transparent selection process.

So that includes public notice of applicants, a public hearing with finalists, and a written explanation of the final decision. As someone who does regularly participate in public meetings lasting five to six hours, I can confidently say that this process can be completed within two meetings and a voting meeting, roughly eighteen hours of deliberation. So, this is not a matter of time. It's just more about accountability. I want to briefly address concerns around the cost.

These amendments do not create new programs or require additional staffing just as Mrs. Detwiler just spoke of briefly. They operate within the existing authority of the elections commission under HR's Chapter 11. In fact, a defined timeline and transparent process reduce prolonged vacancies and prevent inefficiencies and minimize the risk of costly management or mismanagement. You know, I just want to be clear that this is a great election year for us to rebuild voter trust and not deepen the mistrust throughout the unclear and unacceptable processes. So, for these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose these, this bill unless it's amended.

So mahalo for your service and mahalo for the time to speak.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gregory. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2143? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 2532 relating to the campaign spending commissions electronic filing system. This measure amends various sections of the Hawaii campaign spending laws by requiring designated campaign finance forms to be submitted electronically through the Campaign Spending Commission's upgraded electronic filing system. First up, we have Mrs. Chang on the Campaign Spending Commission.

Good afternoon again, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Board Members of the Committee, Christy Chang on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. This is the commission's administrative bill, which we, of course, strongly support. It's basically a housekeeping measure. Last session, we thankfully received funding to upgrade our electronic system from all of you, which thank you very much. And what this bill does is to amend various portions of the statute to align with that new system that we have. I'm available for any questions or questions.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify. Is Christina Holt on Zoom? Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2532?

Any questions Members? Seeing none, thank you very much to your testimony. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 3076 Senate draft one, relating to tobacco enforcement. This measure updates tobacco enforcement laws to confirm the authority of the Department of Taxation and the Department of the Attorney General to inspect and seize tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices and e-liquids.

It clarifies that untaxed tobacco products are subject to forfeiture as contraband without regard to the procedures set forth in Chapter 712A, Hawaii revise statutes, in the same manner as untaxed cigarettes. First up, we have the Attorney General on Zoom or in person. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Okamoto. I'm the Deputy Attorney General and the unit supervisor for the tobacco enforcement unit. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this measure, and you have our written testimony. And this committee previously heard the companion bill, so thank you for hearing that bill as well, and apologies if this sounds like a broken record.

The department is in strong support of this measure. On 01/01/2024, a new excise task on electronic smoking devices and e-liquids went into effect pursuant to Act 62. So, we're asking that updates be made to HRS Chapters 245 and Chapter 712 a to strengthen and expand that enforcement authority of both our department and the Department of Taxation to just confirm and ensure that these newly taxed tobacco products are covered. So, what we really want to see is that enforcement parity between these old tobacco products, like cigarettes, and these newly taxed tobacco products. So, we ask this committee to pass this file.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Taxation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. Although Department of Taxation appears chronologically first in this bill, the Attorney General does take lead on this. So I will be deferring to the Attorney General's testimony asking to incorporate it as my own. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's always nice to have smart attorneys that you can turn to and say, that's what I meant. Thank you. Next, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Kevin Ramirez. Welcome, Mr. Ramirez.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Kevin Ramirez, the program manager for the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii, the program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute. Tobacco related disease remains the number one cause of preventable death in our state. So best practices show that restricting access and taxing these products, reduce consumption. Much of the work at the coalition is centered around advocacy, and education around legislative efforts that better protect our community.

And an essential function of legislation is the ability for enforcement. So we support any measure that would provide our regulatory agencies to do the best job they can, enforcing tobacco, legislation to better protect our community. So thank you for the opportunity, Justice.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ramirez. Thanks for your good work. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 3076? Please, come on up. I saw you submitted testimony. I didn't see that you were going to be here in person. Please, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair, Board of Directors, members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony in person. And I'm Ola Irvin with the Department of Health, and we are very glad to work with smart attorneys with the department of the Attorney General.

And we strongly support SB 3076 SD 1. As it is written in Act 62, the attorney general with the Department of Taxation, are investigating and enforcing, the increased cigarettes tax for electronic smoking devices. What SB 3076 will do is then provide them with the enforcement. And so, from a Department of Health perspective, we do care about, health outcomes for our youth.

And what we know is that middle school students are increasing, their frequency of use and their experimentation with these cigarettes. So, these products are still available to our young children. And so, the ability for the Attorney General's office and their inspectors to enforce Act 62 and take these products off the shelves, products which should not be because they're not paying taxes and will also help them with what's happening with our children. So, thank you so much for the opportunity to provide a testimony.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members? Rep. Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair, Department of Health. I'm just curious, if this bill gets passed, how does the enforcement proceed from this?

Thank you, Representative Shimizu. That is a very good question, and that is actually a very practical and operational question that, I'm going to turn to the, the Attorney General's office that does the enforcement. We are supportive. We do provide education and support them in their education of retailers, but really the enforcement this fall to, the Attorney General service.

Mrs. Okamoto, would you be able to assist us in explaining the enforcement, procedures?

Thank you, Charlie. Sorry, Rep. Shimizu. I just want to make sure I'm understanding question. Your question is about the e-cigarettes; that if we come across it in the field, what the enforcement procedure is at that point?

All of it.

So under this bill, what it would look like. So currently, right now, if we come across an untaxed cigarette in the field, we can seize it like contraband. We don't need to go through, an asset forfeiture proceeding. So, it would be considered, like, contraband if you saw maybe, like, methamphetamine or something like that of that nature. So right now, we're just trying to make sure we have the same type of enforcement authority for these other untaxed products that are similarly causing the same harm as, cigarettes.

Right? And so we just wanna make sure that across the board, we're not having a different type of enforcement procedure for a different type of tobacco product. We just wanna make sure it's across the board the same.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes.

And for yeah. Thank you for being here. So, this is trying to update or create a state seizure and forfeiture authority. I mean, there's already that in place, but you're adding in these products to be able to.

Yes. So it's already with cigarettes, we already have that enforcement authority. We've had that on the books for a very long time, but now we have all these new types of tobacco products that are similarly dangerous to consumers. And so we want to make sure that we're not retreating all their products with the same enforcement authority, with the same parity. That's what we're looking for with this bill.

And then follow-up. And so, procedurally, the forfeiture, of this contraband, the procedures and and the way you process, will be the same?

Yes. As on tax cigarettes.

Okay. And so, the asset forfeiture law states- you're utilizing that same law with these products too.

So, taking a step back, in 712 A, which is the asset forfeiture law, there's a there's a specific carve-out right now for untaxed cigarettes. And for those types of products, when we come across it in the field, we have a carve out where we don't need to go through the same procedures, as asset forfeiture. And so, we're asking for that same carve-out for these untaxed tobacco products when we don't need to go through that entire procedure. We can seize it on the spot.

Sure. Sorry. One last one. And so does this reduce the individual safeguards for them with forfeiture, and you have a procedure in place. Is there a due process, I guess?

So right now, with untacked cigarettes, right now, that procedure, and that's in statute. That untaxed cigarettes are treated as contraband. And so, you are in possession of something that is labeled as contraband, and you should not be in possession of it. And then we should be seizing it, and that's just how the law is right now.

And so, we're trying to expand that to all the other types of tobacco products that fall in that same category. And it's just a fairness thing. Right? When you're selling cigarettes and you're already subject to that, what about all the other tobacco products that are out there and then they don't have the same type of laws applied to them? It's just we're really looking for consistency in our enforcement laws right now.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for that explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the testimony. Any other questions, members? If not, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2727 relating to discrimination. This measure lengthens the statute of limitations to file a complaint of discrimination with this Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to one year. First up, Hawaii's state commission on the status oh, and let's do the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission first. Is Mr. Kawatachi online? Please proceed, Mr. Kawatachi.

Same here. Good afternoon again, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Marcus Kawatachi, executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. I submitted written testimony on behalf of the commission in support of this measure, and I'll stand on that. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii State Commission on Status of Women. Miss Cheney?

Hi. Good afternoon. Yasmine Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. The commission stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. As victims of discrimination often experience barriers or delays in reporting, which this extension and the statute of limitation addresses. Thank you for your consideration and support.

Thank you very much. Sandy Livingston, Hawaii State LGBTQ plus Commission, on Zoom, not present. Michael Koloyu on Zoom. Not present. He's left for another hearing, no doubt. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2727? If not, questions, members?

For Mr. Kawakachi.

Yes.

Oh, aloha. Hi. So this is wanting to extend 180 days to a year, and I guess we're the shortest in the nation. Is that, like, what's happening here?

Well, I mean, yes. The shortest, but there are other states that have that statute of limitations as well.

Yeah. And so this is, oh hang on. I was just wondering for financial implications, I just was curious. I mean, that's such a short time frame here. I'm surprised we're only now addressing it. How long has it been in play that we've been doing a hundred and eighty days? Do you know?

I think from the inception of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, which was in the early nineteen nineties.

Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for being there and doing what you do. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2145 relating to recordings of law enforcement activities. This measure establishes the right of a person to record law enforcement activities and establishes a private right of action for any violation of the right to record law enforcement activities. First up, Haley Chang. I saw you get up to move. I said, wait. No. We got a new one.

And good afternoon again. The office of the public defender supports this measure. We do recognize that it codifies something that our Supreme Court has already stated should be should be the law. These measures are important, and I've been asked questions in regards to this measure as to why do we need to codify something if the Supreme Court has already said so. And our response to that is we think that anything time you codify something, it obviously makes it much clearer.

Not everybody reads Supreme Court opinions, but it's very easy for people to refer back to our statute our statutes. Additionally, we hope that this will the codification of this measure will also help encourage the training of law enforcement who may just not know and may may need to be told that citizens have these rights to do that. And, of course, we maintain that none of this is intended to suggest that we stand for or support any interference with law enforcement responsibilities, but our citizens do have a first amendment right to report law enforcement, as outlined in the case. So thank you for the opportunity. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much, miss Cheng. Next, Honolulu Police Department on Zoom, Arnold Seguccio.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi, and, committee members. Acting Major Arnold Sagucio, representing the Honolulu Police Department. The HPD stands by our submitted written testimony in opposition of this bill. I'll lead back the rest of my time to answer any questions, comments, or concerns.

Thank you very much. Next, Liz Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights in support. Next. Veronica Mendoza on Zoom in support. Next, Josh Frost, ACLU.

Thank you, chair, committee members. Josh Frost again with the ACLU of Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this bill. You have our testimony. Sorry.

I won't go through it again. I just wanted to, one, echo what the public defender said, all of all of all of it. We also believe that the right to record is important for over policed and disproportionately policed communities. And the ability to record and and, you know, share recordings online is sometimes the only proof that communities or or victims have when police overstaffed. So we hope you'll move the before. Thank you.

Next, we have Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'll stand by my written testimony but I do want to reiterate as one who acts as a constitutional observer here on Maui, how important it is for us to be able to document actions of law enforcement and federal agents to ensure that people's rights are not being violated. We have witnessed people being murdered doing the kinds of things that I do and there would have been no accountability were it not for people recording. So, this is this says nothing about our local law enforcement but I think there is deep concern in the community about actions of federal agents who are engaging in aggressive efforts to violate people's rights to do this. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 2145? If not, questions, members?

Question. Sure.

First, Rep Garcia. Nope. We have the public defender, but not the attorney general.

Miss Chang? Is she here? Yeah. Oh, there she is. Hi. You mentioned in in your testimony, which I agree with, it's it's a First Amendment liberty. It's already the law of the land or the constitution to record. So what's the impetus of this bill if it already can be done? And has there been any cases where people have been, I guess, violated in in their first amendment rights to record here in Hawaii locally?

Well, I think the Supreme Court case as we cited in our testimony state v Russo is exactly the type of conduct that we want to ensure does not happen. And thank you for the question about the First Amendment because, yes, it is what we believe a well established rate. However, what this measure does also do is articulate certain things that law enforcement cannot do, which is, of course, stop the reporting and also seize, like, reporting devices as well.

Has that happened here?

Yes. So I I do believe it's a matter of training. Another thing that I'd like to highlight is that some of the feedback or questions that I've received on this measure is police officers not have body cameras. So why would we need this if our law enforcement is reporting? And to that, I would say that, first of all, activating your body worn camera is up to the the discretion or the responsibility of the officer.

And more than you would think, sometimes they neglect to do that, and it could be because of the stress of the situation, the emergency, but they they fail to activate. Another thing that

I would like to point out is that our plainclothes officers are not required to wear body cameras. So our crew, division, they don't have body camera. They're plainclothes detectives. They don't have body worn cameras. So for all of these reasons, I think it's important to codify it and to articulate the boundaries of what our law enforcement can and cannot do.

Thank you. And just a quick follow-up, chair. Do you see, miss Chang, any potential conflict if someone, you know, is say they're pulled over or or they're stopped on the sidewalk and they start recording the police officer because they're in fear of whatever. That's fine. That's their right.

If the officer wants to make an arrest or do something like that, and he makes the arrest, their camera has to go away somehow. What do you see do you foresee any problems there with them claiming constitutional violations at all of your stopping my right to record what's happening and stuff like that?

No. I think the section two of the proposed measure addresses that exact situation because we do not want to escalate any kind of situation. Safety and proper police procedure is of paramount concern. And I believe the bill clearly articulates that if you have been, arrested or have been detained or placed in custody, that that right goes away. And now it's we have to follow police protocol.

And as part of, the law enforcement would be better able to answer this question, but you should not be having access to your personal devices like your phone or, bags or anything like that if you are detained and in custody.

You're welcome.

Got it. Thank you.

Mister Shimizu?

For, miss Chang, I think you might have touched on the question. My my question was gonna be, where is the line to determine, quote, interference with, police activity?

I don't think there's a bright line. I think it's gonna depend situationally. But I think that that is something that I believe the police will be hopefully trained to do. There are already many measures outside of reporting of law enforcement that exist in our criminal code, such as interference with government operations, resisting arrest, things like that, things of that nature that are obviously not only not allowed but are already criminalized in terms of your the public's interaction with law enforcement. Obviously, if anyone is impeding with the ability of law enforcement to meaningfully do their job, and I believe the case talks about that.

Really, what we're addressing is bystanders and people who are passively observing, who are reporting. That is what my understanding of what the case is addressing and what this bill is, addressing as well. Yeah. Yeah.

So that's what the bill describes.

Can can I ask one? Sure. You know, I'm looking at HPD's, testimony, and one of their points is the bill does not protect private property owners rights to privacy. If the bill is passed, it will be allowed onto private property that is not open to the public, such as someone's home, for the purpose of filming law enforcement activity. Do you have a comment on that?

I would. I don't think there's anything in this measure that would permit someone else to then commit other crimes. What I that is describing would, in my opinion, would be criminal trespass. If they're alluding to the fact that part of a video from outside the property would perhaps catch a front yard or something of that nature. That's a different matter, but there's nothing about this measure nor in good conscious would I, as a defense attorney, believe that that would be defensible to say that you have a right to trespass or commit another crime in order to execute a a video recording of law enforcement.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. I have a question for the Honolulu Police Department. Are you still here?

Standing by, sir.

Thank you, sir. Could you help us understand what the training that you provide to your police officers on this particular topic of bystanders videotaping the the officer?

Well, it's a constitutional right for them to do so. Officers only can act upon situations where it's there's a criminality towards it. Filming our activities out on the street is almost welcomed by us. We also have body worn cameras like the first person that spoke about it. We also have that.

We usually turn it on during interactions with the public in we're engaged in any type of investigation. I think we're really concerned about the broad word of law enforcement activities. With that word activities, it could mean anything. With the advent of, you know, drone technology, the ability for people to get on up on high levels and start monitoring our training activities, SWAT tactics, you know, just how we do our strategies in regards to dealing with criminals and stuff like that. I think you would be very dangerous and would lead to some officer safety issues and possible injuries.

So it also would lead also to crime scene protocols. You know, that would mean that people with, you know, these drones could possibly start filming our crime scene activities, which would lead to, you know, bad case integrity. And then it would cause us to, you know, have situations in in a court situation.

Thank you for that explanation. Could I ask miss Cheng to give us a sense of this issue of, you know, responding to the concern of the police department about the members of the public videotaping training, tactics, or in case of a crime scene activity, their investigations. What what is the right of a private individual to videotape those activities?

I think what we're talking about in terms of the corners of this bill is really activity that's protected by the First Amendment, right, your right to free speech. I don't believe that necessarily translates to private in house organizational nonpublic training activities by law enforcement. That is not what I believe the spirit of this measure is intended to achieve.

And the case that this measure is based on State V. Russo, really what it was is exactly what I've been articulating Yep. Which is a bystander observing a traffic stop and pulling out and pulling out a recording device and recording.

Yeah. Yeah.

And that's really the activity that we're looking to codify and protect as our case law has articulated it should be.

Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Back to the police department, mister Kawasaki Saragucio, When you do your training, are you doing it in in the public, or are you doing it on private land or, you know, public your own your own training facilities?

It kinda depends, chair. Like, I'll give you a perfect example. Our solo bikes, they do utilize areas of the public and their roadways in order to conduct escort trainings usually for, you know, POTUS sometimes or for some dignitaries. So that is secret kinds of stuff. It's it's it's police trade craft, in other words.

So we don't want that to kinda get out. You know, the Kukula MacKay Police Academy, there is a front row that passes there with drone technology. You could get above that. And then from from, you know, public areas, you could kinda like videotape or, you know, record police tactics training, the SWAT houses on that side of the the the property. It's just it's just a concern about that broad law enforcement activities.

At this point, out on the street, we welcome anybody if they're if they're willing to just Kinda, like, stay on the side and and if they wanted to record us on their cell phone, happens. Hungry Hungry Hawaiian is one of the mister Isaac is is is a welcome person at scenes and stuff like that. It's just that we we cannot have them, you know, entering our crime scenes, you know, and interrupting our investigations.

Absolutely. And and I think that's we're trying to make sure that there are guardrails in the bill to make sure that the members of the public do not interfere in your investigation. So thank you for that that admonition. Chair Belatti.

For miss Chang, I kinda just wanna put this argument to bed. HPD in their testimony says this bill does not protect private property owners' right to privacy. If this bill is passed, people would be allowed onto private property that is not open to the public. I guess as I look at this bill, there's nothing in this bill saying that a private property owner could say no, I don't want you here and you are not allowed on this property. Correct.

Okay. So, and a private landowner always retains that right to say no to the public member you're not allowed be here.

Correct. And that would also extend to the use of drones. So for example, if someone is in a private area on private property and someone was trying to use a drone to report not constitutionally protected free speech activity, that would not be permissible, and that's not protected, by the constitution. So I think that can be akin to what law enforcement's concern is about possible drones accessing what is not meant for public consumption. K. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the input from you, miss Chang, and thank you to, Honolulu Police Department for helping us understand better your concerns as well as your training. So thank you very much, mister Seguccio. Any other questions, this measure, Senate bill 2145?

If yes.

Sure.

I guess miss Chang first, please. Hi. Thanks for being here. And so as written, you are very confident that this bill, does support the first the constitutional right and also, covers the, you know, unduly, interference of the public in, you know, police, activity. Is that

I believe it does.

There's a good balance. Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to Yes. For your reinforcement and confidence that it is.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rep Elle Cochran.

And, for the Hawaii Honolulu. Honolulu Police Department. Yeah. I just had a question. Yeah. I'm sorry. . Aloha.

Yes. I'm present.

Thanks for being here. So the drone issue, if in fact you have some, you know, top secret missions and training that you're doing and you would not like it to be publicly known and perhaps, you know, drones may be in the area or you cite something, are you able to get I don't know if it's it's FFA or the local airports to, do, like, a no fly zone for such drone activity to protect yourselves?

Yes. So, I'm gonna give you a perfect example. We did that for the Honolulu marathon. There was individuals that were violating the air restriction zones. We located those people and all those people were addressed.

However, we cannot that kind of implores that we we're gonna know everywhere that we're gonna do the training, but I just wanted to add this. Right? So I I did check with our professional standards office in regards to any type of investigations in regards to our officers, Honolulu Police Department officers engaging in these types of activities. And there was only one situation. However, that situation was also recorded on body worn camera, and those officers were exonerated in regards to that.

Mhmm. Okay. Well, thank thank you for your time, sir. Thank you, your chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thank you to all the testifiers on this measure. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2312 relating to government contracts.

This measure amends the Uniform Information Practices Act, often called UEBA, to require the contracted party of each contract to perform an agency function to retain records following the retention schedule of the agency and to provide the agency access to the records upon request. It establishes that all records retained by an agency function contractor shall be deemed government records for the purposes of UEBA. It exempts contracts entered into by the employee's retirement system. And on this, we have Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Not present.

Next, Department of Human Resources Development. Not present. Next, attorney general.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Charles Lee, deputy attorney general. We submitted our strong opposition to this bill and the reason is this so to explain what this bill does is this bill would amend the UEPA, Uniform Information Practices Act, to require every contractor perform an agency function to include provisions requiring the contractor to retain records under the agency's retention schedule and provide the agency access to those records upon request. It would also deem all records retained by the contractor under that section to be government records for UEFA purposes. Now department's main concerns are first, that the bill is exceptionally broad, and it shifts the UIPA compliance risks to agencies for particularly the records they do not possess or control. Second, it increases contractor burden and likely raises costs to the state.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the committee hold this bill. And I just wanna note finally that that the our department is willing to work with stakeholders, I believe, like, first, Public First Law Center between legislative sessions to prepare a compromise that makes transparency a priority while ensuring the state's ability to manage its operations efficiently. Thank you, and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Land and Natural Resources?

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Luke Siber with DLNR. We also stand in opposition.

Thank you. Next, Jade Butai, director of Department of Labor in industrial relations.

Hello, Chair Tarnas, vice chair of Belatti. David Rogers with Department of Labor, Industrial Relations. We stand on our our just in opposition. Thank you.

Just curious. Is it the same reasons that the attorney general had mentioned? Yes.

I would ask actually, defer my questions to the attorney general.

Okay. Next, State Procurement Office.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Daniel O'Mia with the State Procurement Office. We stand on our written testimony in opposition to this measure.

Is it the same concerns that the attorney general has brought up?

Yep.

K. Thank you. Next, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Melanie Martin, deputy director for administration with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We stand in opposition to this bill for the same reasons articulated by the Department of the Attorney General. Thank you.

Thank you. You save me from asking the question. Office of Information Practices.

Chair, vice chair, and committee members, I'm Carlotta Amarino. I'm the director of the Office of Information Practices, and we administer Hawaii's Public Records Law, chapter 92 f. Some people say UIPA. We say UIPA.

Oh, I'll say that. UIPA.

The Supreme Court says UIPA. Want. So either one is fine. Okay. We offered very brief comments really just describing what the bill does. We will defer to the affected agencies as to the administrative burden and liabilities that this bill may impose upon them. And we also are, of course, willing to work with interested parties over the interrupt to come up with a compromise. Thank you for questions if you have any.

Thank you very much. Next, Board of Water Supply. I saw mister Lau here. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Yeah. Thank you. Ernie Lau, Board of Water Supply. We also strongly oppose this bill for the reasons pre previously stated. K. Thank you. This will create some real big problems. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Now we're gonna hear from people who support it. Public First Law Center.

Good afternoon, chairman, vice chair, members of the committee. We very much support this bill. Thank you for hearing it. Thank you for introducing its companion. Should this not move forward, given the extensive agency, opposition, we're more than happy to, in the interim with folks.

But we certainly hope you still pass it out because it is a good bill. It promotes transparency in government contracting, and it protects against fraud, waste, and abuse. It does that by ensuring that agencies, the agencies, the folks that are here opposing it, it ensures that they have the right to access the records of their contractors.

So I'm gonna take take the bill right here, and we're gonna read the language. This is what it provides. Each contract with an agency to perform an agency function shall require the contractor to do two things, retain all records related to the performance of that function following the agency's retention schedule, and provide the agency with access to those records upon request. I don't understand why the agencies aren't lining up to support this bill. We have had discussions with the the with the attorney general's office, and and respectfully, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of existing law.

Existing law law allows someone like me to ask an agency for the records of their contractor if the contract gives the agency a right to get those records. So I can give you a very concrete example. Right? So I live at the bottom of a hill, Kopakahi Place. We've got a big, Friendship Garden Trail at the top.

This last week, we've had a stream of of water running down our street. For the for about six months, we've had these storm drains installed by the county. Six months, it touched probably half $1,000,000. The stream runs down, and it misses all but one stream, all but one of the drains that was recently installed. So what I wanna know is, was it a mistake in the specifications or a mistake in the the execution of that?

So I wanna be able to ask the county first, can I have a copy of the contract? And then I'm gonna read that, and I'm gonna see what was required. Were surveys required before? Were surveys required after? If so, I'd like to see those surveys. That's existing law. There's no additional burdens that this is gonna create or additional risks that aren't already there in the in the present law. Really, all the agency has to do is just ask the contractor. That's it.

And, you know, I just I still have not heard a good explanation for why an agency should be able to waive that rate. Yeah. Under current law, if an agency has access, the public also has access. And that's why we're interested in this bill. That's why we support it.

It safeguards public access while maintaining all of the protections of existing disclosure exemptions. So the concerns of the board of water supply, the concerns of state procurement office, everybody, proprietary concerns, that's already protected by frustration of a legitimate government function. If if disclosing certain records are gonna frustrate a government function, like providing a safe water, then they can withhold those records today, and they can withhold those records if this bill is passed. We really think it's worthy of your favorable consideration. We're happy to work with folks in the interim, but we really do ask that you pass this bill out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Ted Kefalas. On Zoom? No? Not in person? Okay. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2312? Yes, please. Climb up and introduce yourself.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Tori Nakata on behalf of Will Cain with the office of the governor, standing on our written testimony in opposition of this measure, and we would also like to, defer to the AGs on their testimonies.

So your your opposition is based on the same concern as the attorney general brought up?

I see. Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes.

Thank you very much for that too.

Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Yes.

I have a question.

Oh, thank you, general. What is the current form contract language that you guys have or the department offers and places into contracts for state agencies for record retention?

So, existing law allows us to reach it or provide records if they are administratively maintained by the agency, including where the agency has contracted

That's not my question. My question is, in contracts that you give contract templates, what is the language where you require the contractor to retain records?

It depends depending on the contract itself. So not all contract are the same.

So can you provide a sampling to this to this committee of what some of that retention language might look like?

Right. So we would I think sometimes in contracts, we would require the right for the audit access to those to the documents that

So my question is can you provide some of that template language? Like, give us, like, DLNR, DHS, DCR, or like, and think about the categories and provide our committee with template language so that we can understand what the retention policies are in state contracts.

Representative, I apologize. I don't have the exact language with me, but I can follow-up and I can provide it to you.

If you could just go back to the office and send it to me As to when you can, that'd be great. If you share it with me and I can share it with the members.

I I think that would be helpful because as mister Krepp said, I think the language of the actual bill is is not something that is surprising and this should be something that we would want to have access to. So so that's why we'd like to understand what the retention policies are. Right.

Absolutely. And, again, it's the the main concern that the department has are the contract I mean, are are they contract records that is outside of the contractor's possession? I mean, sorry, that the contractor has, but we don't have access to them. Right? So if there's a UEFA request and we can't get them because they don't comply, we cannot just say we don't have the records anymore. We'll still be on the hook.

So I think that's where, chair Belotti's question about what is in the contract language

I can get that Specific language, For sure.

To to know what are you requiring

Yes.

Of the company that you're contracting with to retain records and provide I

can provide several variations with that.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Any other questions, members? Sure. Yep.

Thank you, attorney general. So I I'm just flabbergasted that we don't already do this. I've had a real hardship current in asking for contracts and records and invoices on how over $200,000,000 has been spent by the state to an unlicensed contractor, and I can't get to the bottom of it. And you said there's audit access. Okay. There's a current audit going on.

Let's focus on the

So here's here's my question.

Focus on the bill. .

Yeah. So, this clarifies records created, received, maintained, or used by private contractors performing government functions on behalf of public agencies, and that information is subject to WIPA, UIPA. Sorry. And so you're saying that you're you're not that's a hindrance. That's a burden. This is this is a burden, and you can't possibly do this or don't do this.

As long as the bill provides some meaningful enforcement mechanism against the contractor, You know, that would be something that we could contemplate. But right now So sorry. Under this bill, there is no enforcement mechanism for us to demand these records. So Against the Contractor. Contractor if they don't if they just say if they just say no.

So chair. Mhmm. So I I just don't understand. If this is public money, we hired we have contractors we hired. We cannot you gave them there was an RFP. There's a bid process. There's a contract that was signed and paid for. You do not have

Again You don't

have opportunity for those pay that paperwork?

We we will we did ask for the contract language so we understand that better.

I did. But again, if we have contractual access to those rights, we can demand them. Yeah. But not all contracts are like that.

We're I just so I'm just confused that there's no accountability here. Or or don't you care No. It's just no accountability.

Just go ahead and ask the question that you have.

I mean, I feel like the there's an invasion of transparency, of accountability I'm gonna ask a question. Of how money is being spent. And so are I just like, I feel like you just don't That Does it matter? Does it not matter to the attorney general's office that that was my question. Let me just and so we have to create this to to make sure that we have accountability and transparency in our government right now with our taxpayer dollars and funds being spent.

Yeah. I don't know why I know you're gonna give I know you're gonna put in give language, but I just don't

I just I wanted to get to your question. That's all.

And so I guess currently, this is trying to, add in that contracts and can be part of the UIPA process. But it has to come from you to make sure the the contracts that you're contracting out there with our taxpayer dollars, you have to ask these contractors or put in your language that you're able to access the the contracts. And here and hence, the public or whoever we, can now ask UIPA for such documents.

Like, again, I think our depart it's very clear that our department respects the intent of 92 f chapter 92 f, that we want transparency. We we respect that. Our again, our only concern here is that we're concerned with those documents that are out of outside of our control. Right? So if if this bill makes everything government government records that are in possession of the contractors. We just don't have the mechanism to compel them from those contractors in this bill.

And did you have a follow-up?

So can we just keep it I mean, I'm not saying every contract in the entire, you know, state, but maybe just focus on our own state contracts for starters. Could we do that? Do you would you be open to that? State contracts funded by state.

I think that is what this is about.

I think that I mean, I just great. That's great. And but yet you have a a issue, I guess, with that.

If we were to if this bill, again, were to pass, we just don't have the enforcement mechanism to compel those documents.

Okay. Alright. I'm I'm just yeah. Nope.

I understand. I appreciate your frustration. Back to Chair Belatti.

Can you or are you aware of any state contract when we waive access to records from a contractor?

I I believe this whole issue started out with the contracting out, finding the the next president.

And they actually waived?

I I I don't know the specifics of that, but what what we're saying is if that's the issue, then really that should go into maybe procurement code and be more specific in addressing that issue rather than putting it on the entire 92 f. Where it would affect every contract.

You have a follow-up?

Yeah. Follow-up. Okay. So The contract itself would create the enforcement mechanisms. Your yours you made a point that this bill has no enforcement mechanisms to get records from the contractor. But wouldn't a state contract itself spell out what the enforcement mechanisms are for you as the state actor to get the records from from from the contractor?

That's yes. I I believe so. Yeah.

K. So I think the request for the the template language around record access to records is also what are the enforcement mechanisms in the contract.

Understood. Okay.

Thank you, chair.

Yes. I agree. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions, members? I've got I just have one Did you wanna finish? Yes?

I just want I wanna say one more thing. This would touch every contract out there. We're not just talking about big vendor contractors, even the smaller ones. They would need to change their entire practices to change the retention practices of keeping those records to the agency standard. That's a lot of ask in our view because the state had more than 2,400 the executive branch alone had awarded 20 more than 2,400 contracts totaling 12,000,000 plus.

We believe that this could raise the cost to the to the residents of the state. Thank you.

Just a quick question. What's the retention policy? How long did the agencies have to keep documents? Oh, different agencies have different retention policies? I believe so. And this bill would say that whoever is contracted by the agency has to match agency retention.

That that that will be agency-specific

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers on this measure. Let's move ahead to our last measure on the agenda. Senate bill 3225. This is our statutory revision bill that amends and reveals various provisions of our statutes, for the purpose of correcting errors and references and clarifying language or deleting obsolete or unnecessary provisions.

On this measure, we it's prepared by the Legislative Reference Bureau. We have testimony from the Legislative Reference Bureau, in support and and the testimonies in writing. Nobody is gonna be here from LRB, So I don't no one we don't have anyone to ask questions though.

Let's go ahead and move to decision making. Thank you for all members coming in for decision making. To the top of the agenda, please, Senate bill 2055 Senate draft one on this measure. On this measure, I would like to move this out. I recommend that we move it out with amendments, technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

I want I wanna, make sure we have consistency within the language here on page two, line 15. I wanna modify subsection d so it matches subsection a. Subsection a's focus focuses specifically on oh, this is this is about federal specific.

They had asked if we switched to just

Yeah. I would like to take the recommendation of the Civil Rights Commission to change the language in here so that we remove references to federal entities, that we focus specifically on receiving any complaints about civil rights violations so that we don't explicitly say federal agencies. This is for any civil rights violations. So I want to make sure that's clear both in in section a at subsection a and subsection d. So it may be that we would change subsection a to match subsection d, which describes the helpline of serving individuals who experience or witness civil rights violations generally.

I think that's that's what I should do, because I don't want to have this piece targeted specifically at federal agents. Then on page two, lines 16 to 17, Since the helpline is operated by a contractor, I wanna clarify the language on line 16 to 17. So it reads, all reports and other communications to the helpline, including those received or maintained by a contractor operating the helpline on behalf of the Civil Rights Commission, shall be confidential and shall be treated as records of the commission subject to section 368 dash four. And then I would like to exempt Civil Rights Commission from Chapter 103 d for the purposes of contracting for the provision of the helpline. That way it clarifies legislative intent and avoid any procurement ambiguity.

So I wanna insert, quote, the civil rights commission may contract for the operation of the helpline to carry out purposes this section without regard to Chapter 103 d. I wanna include technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defect the effective date to 07/01/3000. It's gonna move on to finance. I would urge the Civil Rights Commission to bring their request for fine for appropriations to the finance committee. Any questions or concerns, members?

Okay. Okay. Chair, you mentioned the removal of the word federal?

Well, I just wanna say I I'm gonna take the Civil Rights Commission's recommendation to generally describe that this helpline is for individuals to submit reports of any civil any potential civil rights violations. So I'm gonna remove references to right now, it says reports of harms from federal deployments in the state.

So that complete sentence removing it. Okay. Alright.

I'll I'll remove any reference to federal deployments and federal agents or things like that. Okay. So so to receive civil rights violations in general.

Yes. Okay. I gotcha. Okay. Just wanted that clarity. Thank you.

Sure. Sure. Rep Garcia

Thank you, sir. I appreciate the amendments to to remove that because I do believe the impetus of of this bill is purely political to target federal law enforcement. And so be because that was the original intent of this bill, I'll be putting it up.

Thank you. Okay.

Can I respond to that too?

Well, I did I did I am proposing the amendment.. And I appreciate

that you still have it originally. So

Okay. It's up to you as you wish. But on the amendment or any other comment?

I just appreciate your amendment, chair, because I think it shows how extensive the house is and how we really are actually protecting all civil rights. And so I really appreciate the contention because it just shows we're the better body.

There you go. You're right. Any other comments or concerns? Rep Shimizu.

Thank you. I understand the intent. I just feel like right now, we need to be fiscally responsible and I I feel like we're creating a new ongoing financial obligation that could be avoided and and this situation can be handled in in other ways without creating this. So I will be voting more as well.

Okay. Understood. Any other comments or concerns?

Sure. Sorry. Yes. I mean, I I was glancing through and thinking more like a pilot program to see how this rolls out and, you know, with the cost yeah. With the to get solid cost cost controls on this. And, I mean, there's no sunset. So I don't know. I think for me to be more comfortable with more of a pilot type effort, but it's I I get it. So I appreciate your work here.

Finance committee may choose to do something just that way in order to

Okay. Thanks.

You know, make sure that we're putting some boundaries on it. That's fine. But just in terms of the concept as a judiciary and Hawaiian affairs committee that this is an opportunity for us to provide a service to the community to report any potential civil rights violations. And and whether we can afford this or not, that's a that's a different question. Then it's a valid question, absolutely valid, and finance committee will certainly have to address that. Rep. Garcia. And

one last comment here. I just wanna note that even if this bill doesn't pass, there still is ways and avenues to to report civil rights violations.

So Absolutely. Directly to the civil rights commissions. Right? It's just this is this makes it even easier. But you're right. There is a there are other methods. Yes. Good point. Good point. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 2,152 Senate draft two. We moved out a similar bill, the same bill, a companion, and send it to finance. I'd like to do that with this as well. Just defect the effective date to 07/01/3000 and pass it on to finance. Questions or concerns, members? If not. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2152 SD two with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2247 Senate draft one relating to political fundraising by executive branch employees. I'd like to move this out with language to match, the companion bill that we passed, house bill 2107 house draft one. I'll defect the effective date to 07/01/3000. I would like to clarify that the prohibition on engaging in political fundraising applies to gubernatorial appointees with procurement authority.

So that way, we're clear about what we're speaking because the section title references pure procurement authority. So we'll add language in the bill to clarify that the prohibition on engaging in political fundraising applies to gubernatorial appointees with procurement authority. That with the defective effective date are my recommendations, questions, or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2247 SD one with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2442 Senate draft one. I know this is gonna give our dear friend Brandon Kimura heartburn, but I would like to move this on, to finance. It's a budgetary challenge, to figure out how to provide that, certain protections against inflation. So I think we've we had enough discussion in our, you know, questions, question period on this bill so that judiciary understands where we're coming from and that perhaps there's even an opportunity to adjust to the payments to these service contract entities, these community based organizations, to try to address what we what it sounds like is a a chronic underfunding.

And but it it may be because they haven't asked for it, and they need to ask for it. Or but I think that's a conversation that judiciary can have with the finance committee after you do some initial some additional homework. So my recommendation is to move this out with a defective effective date, 07/01/3000, and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, members? It's here. Yes, rep Shimizu.

I would appreciate the Judiciary's caveat that although it's a great idea and I agree with it, my reservations would be that their their funding is They have no control over that funding. So it needs to be provided Yep. In order for this to go forward. So I'm just voting yes with reservations.

Yeah. It's it's You're absolutely right, rep Shimizu, and and finance committee has to grapple with that. How are they gonna provide the the appropriations necessary to to make this happen? It's it's not an easy answer.

Thank you.

Any other comments or concerns?

Sure.

Yes.

No problem. Yeah. I think the word automatic increase was, you know, I think a a big stickler there too. So that continues to sit in the bill, correct, at this point?

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Just asking the question. Thank you.

Oh, absolutely. No. That's a valid question. Thank you. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2442 SD one with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? I have with reservations for rep Shimizu. Are there any additional reservations? Reservations for Reservations. Representatives Garcia and Cochran. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, relating to vacancies, Senate Bill 2499. The House companion bill, House Bill 2099 was passed unamended by the Senate Judiciary today. So for the time being, I'm just gonna defer this bill so we don't have two measures two identical measures moving. If something comes up and we have to bring this back, we'll bring it back.

But at this point, we're we're gonna defer Senate bill 2499 and go with the house companion as the vehicle. Any comments or concerns? The next one, Senate Bill 2143 relating to the chief election officer. This one, I would like to move forward. I wanna put a defective effective date on it, so 07/01/3000, and, move it forward so it goes into conference, and we can have more discussion if we if we need to.

But this does set up a succession that, though there are those who oppose it, at least it is a succession that would only be temporary, until the election commission appoints a new chief election officer, as they would do in any case, and hopefully, expeditiously as quickly as possible. But just to make sure that, for example, if we lose our chief election officer rate when the election is done, we wouldn't even be able to certify the election, until a new chief election officer is named. So it's, it's something that I'd like to continue, but I'm gonna put a defective effective date on it with your, consent, so we can take it to conference. Questions or concerns, members? Comment, chair.

Yes. Rep Garcia.

Thank you, chair. I understand the the push for this bill. I do wanna highlight though the testimony that was sent in in opposition to the bill. I think they bring up credible points, which should should not be overlooked. And then lastly, before I close my remarks, I do wanna just say that during the testimony period, it was just unacceptable to have a certain testifier call people who use and and engage in their civic duty in attending public meetings labeled as election deniers. So, no vote. Thank you.

Good. Good point. Gotta call people on their acting disagreeable. It's it's not something that I support, so I appreciate you calling them on it. Other comments or concerns?

Chair,

Rep Shimizu

I feel the Election Commission is well within their abilities to elect a successor. So I I will be voting no for that as well.

Okay. Other comments? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2143 SD one with amendments. All members are present. I have no votes for representatives Garcia Garcia and Shimizu. Are there any additional no's? Myself. No for representative Cochran. Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2532 relating to the Campaign Spending Commission electronic filing system. On this measure, I'd like to move forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. This is not controversial, but I would I'd still like to put a a defective effective date on it, to 07/01/3000, just in case we need to make any other adjustments in conference. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on 2532. . Voting on SB 2532 with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate bill 3076 Senate draft one, relating to tobacco enforcement. I'd like to move this on to finance and just defect the effective date to 07/01/3000. Questions or concerns, members. If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3,76 SD one with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2727 relating to discrimination. This I'd like to move forward to conference, if In case we have to make any additional changes by, I'd like to insert a defective effective date 07/01/3000. That's the only change questions or concerns members. If not, vice chair for the vote.

SB 2727 with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Reservations. Reservations for representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2145 relating to recordings of law enforcement activities. Like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the effective date to 07/01/3000 and move this out. You wanna take it to conference. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2145 with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Reservations for representatives Garcia Shimizu. Okay. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate bill 2312 Senate draft one relating to government contracts. This I I'd like to move this on to finance with a defective effective date, 07/01/3000. It may not make it out of finance. And I would urge, the agencies, in particular, the attorney general and maybe the state procurement office, for example, maybe office of information practices, that they work with the advocacy organizations, Public First Law Center and others, to figure out a way that we could get agency support for this.

Because it seems like it's something that we should be able to do. So I I agree that we should be able to do this, but, clearly, there's a great deal of opposition and reluctance to do it. So I still would like to signal to the agencies that this is something that the legislature supports. We'll move it on to finance. We'll see what finance does with it, And then it may be something that would, require additional work over the interim if they choose not to move it forward.

So, my recommendation is to move it out with the defective effective date of 07/01/3000. Questions or concerns, members? Sure. Yes.

Yeah. I'm surprised we don't have something like this already in place, but

Welcome to the legislature. Yeah. You get to find out things that well, why isn't this already a law?

I can't remember having this many, significant departments against it. So I think it needs some work, and I have to vote no.

Okay. Yeah. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2312 SD one with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? I have no for representative Shimizu. Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 2721 relating to the administration of justice. This is the, penal code review bill. I'd like to do I'd like to make amendments in here that are very similar to what we made in, the house companion. I want to, act 238 from 2021 should be amended to change the date for which section 709 dash 906 will revert to since the current date of 12/31/2020 will revert to the language pre act 192020 and it'll make the amendments move.

So we'll correct that. And since this bill will take will be taking effect on 07/01/2026 after the 06/30/2026 repeal and reenactments for Section 706623 the effective date for Section 17 should be moved up to 06/29/2026. You can see Section 40 for the effective date of this bill and language to preserve the amendments to Section 706623. I wanna make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would also like to adopt the amendments from the Department of Health in their testimony.

They they have two amendments. I'd like to adopt both of them. I would like to adopt the amendment, the second amendment in well, the only amendment in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. They have requested that we add the words or federal so it reads, notwithstanding any other state or federal statute. And that's comes twice in the bill, page 13 line three and page 26 line 10.

I would also like to amend subsection three of the bill so that we give the court discretion to refer a person to treatment should the required assessment indicate a medical need for such. So that the the sub proposed subsection three would read, quote, whenever a court sentences a person, grants a motion for deferral, or grants a conditional discharge, it shall also require that the person completes a substance abuse assessment. The court may require participation in an appropriate level treatment upon recommended by the assessment. So I want to include that. Technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And then the attorney general amendments, I'm only gonna take one of them, and that's the one related to noise. So it's on page three of their testimony, adding to page 33 line 13, adding an additional provision that's laid out in their testament in their testimony on on page three. So I would adopt that one of their amendments. Those are my recommendation. Oh, and I'd also like to I have a a defective effect effective date of 07/01/3000, and then move us on to finance. Okay. Okay. Questions or concerns, members?

Sure. What what about Dennis Dunn's amendments regarding Yeah.

Thank you for that.

For for the victim.

Thank you for that question. I I checked with those who worked on this, and those were brought up in the penal code review committee. They chose not to include it. So I'd like to honor their work because the the changes I made, I think are minor, but I think are important. The change that mister Dunn is asking for is very important, but it's significant.

I have told mister Dunn, that we should address that, but it needs to be in a separate measure. And that may take work over the interim, and then anybody who wants to can work with me during the interim to focus on that. But restitution for victims is something that we need to do a better job at. I just don't wanna put it into this bill. I think we wanna move it forward with the recommendations, you know, pretty much as the penal code review committee recommend.

So I appreciate you bringing it up. It is something that concerns me, but I think it's gonna have to be a a separate bill that I have to work on over the interim. And you can help. Yeah. Okay? I will try. Okay. Any other comments or concerns?

Thank you for the discussion, sir. Sure.

Sure. Thank you. Okay. If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2721 SD 1 with amendments. All members are present. Are there any voting? No. No for representative Garcia. Any voting with reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations for representative Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 3225. No need to make any changes to this. We're gonna I'd like to recommend we pass this out as is, clean date, correct the mistakes, and update the statute says, Legislative Reference Bureau suggests. Questions or concerns, members? If not, recommendation pass unamended.

Voting on SB 3225 as is. All members are present. Are there any voting no? Any with reservation? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. There'll be no further business before this committee today. We are adjourned.