House Standing Committee on Education

Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. This is our Committee on Education. Today's date is the 19th of March, 2:00 PM, and we are in Conference Room 309. Today, we are on a deadline.

We have about five hours to clear most of these bills, so I'm gonna ask the people in the room to keep your testimony to only one minute, if you wanna expand upon what you've already submitted via testimony. Okay? And with that, we'll get started on SB 2024, SD 2. This is with regards to SFA and P3s. First up, we have is the Department of Education.

Writing comments.

Good afternoon, Chair. Jesse Suki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, offering testimony for the Department of Education. We stand on our written testimony and just wanted to highlight a concern we have. We wanted to be sure that these P3s would only apply to public charter schools on private land and not impact public schools on DOE land. Thank you.

Thank you. We received your testimony in... We also have SFA providing testimony in support, in person. Apologies.

...With the School Facility Authority. We support.

Thank you for being here, director. Next, we have Charter School Commission offering testimony in support. Dr. Ed Noh.

Hi, chair, vice chair. Ed Noh, Executive Director, Charter School Commission. We also stand on our written testimony in support.

Next, we have Hawaii Kids Ken, offering testimony in support, in person.

...Advocacy Director. We stand on our written testimony in strong support.

Next, we have Hawaii Technical—Hawaii Technology Academy offering testimony in support, in person.

Yeah. Go.

Hi. Matt Sotelo, Executive Director of Hawaii Technology Academy, and I just wanted to add to some of the testimony that that I shared in, in March—or, sorry, February. But basically, our school is experiencing significant growth, 60% enrollment to meet our student needs. We've made it work, but for most of our history, we've leased commercial spaces and converted them into schools, investing millions of dollars into tenant improvements.

But those investments remain private owners. We are pulling public funds into buildings that we don't own—that we don't control long-term and may eventually have to vacate. So, at the same time, charter school leaders are navigating, you know, land acquisition, financing, development. Public school, school leaders were not trained in this necessarily, so it, it is a challenge and it's a barrier.

But I think most importantly, why I'm really in I'm in support of this bill is we're keeping public money in public spaces and assets, as opposed to developing private landowners' facilities.

And I think this is really an—a, a great opportunity, and I support it.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. Also, we have UPW offering testimony in opposition. HGEA offering testimony, providing comments.

HGEA will stand on its written testimony.

Thank you so much. We have testimony from two individuals, both in support. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony for SB 2024, SD 2? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

A quick question for SSA. Ricky. Did you get a chance to look at the testimony from UPW and HGEA on their—the private possibility of privatization that they raise on this? Are you able to comment on that and?

Yeah.

On what this model seeks to achieve?

Yeah. The, the model, I mean, it's uncertain until we get proposals on how this model should work, but it's similar to how conversion charter school's asset will be state-owned, but it'll be union employees doing consumer services. It'll be HSTA teachers running the schools. So, those issues—there wouldn't be any issues because there are already six conversion charter schools that that follow that same model. Right?

Because they remain public charter school.

Yes. Absolutely. And, and there are state assets. Right? It's just that the, the idea of the bill is with a private partnership, you can go faster, cheaper, and because it's being built as part of a bigger development or something, you know? So, so, we don't know for sure, but the intent is to be like, we have six conversion charter schools. This would be similar.

And you've, have you started—you've started conversations with both the developers or/and operators?

Oh, absolutely. It's interesting because, right, these regions have been waiting sometimes for twenty years for a school. Right? And this is an opportunity to build a school. Homes are being sold, you know, and there and there are no schools raised.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Move on to the next bill, which is SB 896, SD 2. This is with regards to CIP reporting under Department of Education. First up, we have DOE offering comments in person.

Jesse Souki, deputy superintendent. We rest on our testimony with comments.

Thank you for being here. Testimony from the AG's office offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Randall Wat, deputy attorney general. As further described in our written testimony, department has comments regarding section three of the bill. Because the pilot program authorized the superintendent to redesignate funding. Sorry. Funded positions as positions exempt from HRS Chapter 76, we recommend amendments to ensure that it refers to HRS Chapter 89. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And we have testimony from HGEA offering testimony in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair. Nui Sabas for HGEA. We submitted written testimony in opposition specifically to section three of the bill, which establishes a five year pilot program authorizing the DOE to redesignate vacant positions to exempt. There are just a couple points I do wanna make. Exempt employees are considered at will. Although they're members of our union, they are considered at will by the employer.

And the and the second one is over this, over these past six years, we've seen about a 600 position increase or a 25% increase in the use of use of exempt positions, which not only undermines our civil service system, but also creates more members within our union that have less rights. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

That's all I have on my list. Anyone else? SB 896, SD 2. Seeing none. Members, are there any... Members, any questions?

DOE, please. Superintendent, the capital project tracker, what is that? That's in your testimony. You say you used the Aukahi Financial Management System, which is the same system that's in the audit report of the, that was used in this the audit school meals report. But what is the capital projects tracker? It says in your testimony, fiscal data is in the Aukahi Financial Management System, while project status data is maintained in the capital projects tracker, the department is assessing and evaluating how these systems can be better aligned to strengthen consolidated reporting.

Yes. Sorry.

Yeah. No worries.

So many bills. Yeah. So the AFMS is our financial system, and CPT is our capital projects tracker. And so we are currently evaluating how we can better leverage the two systems and have them communicate better so that we can have outward facing reports that are more convenient for legislators and principals.

Oh, by that you mean you still don't have a system in place that can do exactly that? I mean, right? In the past, haven't we had multiple, not just audits, but, like, studies spearheaded by the department to study your facilities and recommend, you know, yeah, potential, like, provide recommendations.

So we have systems in place. They are in place. But, you know, they need to be upgraded. They're not, they're not user friendly, and we'd like it to be more user friendly and clear so that folks who are interested in the status of projects can easily check and see what the status is. That's available, but it's just sort of clunky right now. We'd like to improve on that.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. We're gonna continue. Next, we have SB 2613, SD 1.

This is with regards to transfers. First up, we have Department of Education offering comments in person.

Jesse Souki, Deputy Superintendent of Operations, presenting for the Department of Education. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments. But just wanted to reiterate that this bill was originally a bill that we supported as part of the governor's package. It was amended to add that the DOE must convey lands, 13 libraries on DOE land.

We believe that's inconsistent with Act 207. Purpose of which was to ensure that land was consolidated for the DOE so it could be more easily developed and use for schools. This would create donut holes in our campuses. And I think the department believes it's unnecessary because we already have agreements and work with the libraries. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here. We have the State Library System here offering testimony in support in person.

Mallory Fujitani for the Hawaii State Public Library System standing on our written testimony in support.

Thank you for being here. We have AG offering comments.

Chair, Vice Chair. Randall Wat again, Deputy Attorney General, for the department. As we described in our written testimony, the department has comments about section four of the bill. First, we note that while the DOE has authorization statutorily to own real property, currently, the Hawaii State Library public library system does not.

So we recommend that, if this is the intent of the legislature that there'd be an express authorization. Secondly, comments that there are implementation concerns, given that number of these bills that report to have the DOE transfer to the library system are not currently owned by the DOE. So we're happy to work with the legislature in further discussing these concerns.

Okay. Anyone else? SB 2613. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Quick question for our libraries. If you wanna respond to Department of Education's testimony. Do you have any, do you have any remarks based upon what the Department of Education?

I think as our testimony shows, we've coexisted for 45 years, but over time, there's been a lack of cooperation or more impacts on the public library system. So our concern is that there's 12 communities out there that at times are at the mercy of the the principal or the DOE or whoever's in charge at that time. And so we're trying to resolve this issue that should have been resolved 45 years ago with the separation of the libraries from the DOE.

So there are some formal communication structures in place?

In 2000, there was, there weren't formal, there was an agreement, and the DOE put their public and school employees, associated principals, I believe, and through some a workshop so that everybody was on the same page as to the control of the site and things with that nature. Over time now, the DOE has only two DOE employees out of this 12 sites, and there is concern that future DOE employees at those sites will impose their will on the public library system because there's a general feeling amongst the DOE employees that the those public and school libraries are their buildings and their property.

Thank you so much. And, DOE. Any responses to that?

Thank you. The libraries have power and authority over libraries. It's in Chapter 312. If there are issues between DOE staff who think the buildings are theirs, I'm unaware of that. And it's clear that the libraries belong to libraries and they manage it. The concern is that, well, one, transferring title to the land and carving it out of the campus, you know, is unnecessary and that, you know, we have agreements in place about how to operate and work together.

At the end of the day, if a public library that allows the general public into the library is in the middle of a campus, the broader school campus is gonna have something to say about who comes on campus, like the requirement for folks who shouldn't be on the, on campus under the harm to student registry, for example.

And when you say powers and authorities under, did you say 312? What do you mean by that?

Chapter 312 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes gives State Library System authority for their operations.

Oh, the State Library System authority for their operations. Okay. So what is the, what is the challenge then with subdividing or CPRing the piece of land that the library sits on in your mind?

Well, we wouldn't want the CPR. That's kind of not something I think we should do for government properties. Generally, we can talk sidebar. But to carve it out and transfer the fee forever alienates it from the DOE property portfolio. And it also makes it more difficult for the DOE to manage its day to day operations on the campus and future development within the within the library.

So I understand and appreciate that if the library, for example, wanted to expand and they're on campus up or do improvements, they would need to coordinate with DOE, and that would take some time. I appreciate that, but I think that's the right thing to do when you have a public, open to the public resource in the middle of a managed campus for children.

Thank you so much. Members, any other questions?

Question, Chair. What is, is there currently a written policy in place that helps to, you know, manage between, you know, this kind of ongoing. That's so that it's understood, like, falls under, you know, how when there's situations like this that arise.

So there's the, there's the statute which gives libraries authority to manage the libraries. There are written agreements. You know, we can issue licenses, right of entries, different types of agreements. There are agreements in place with libraries. I've seen some, not not all of them, but there are agreements in place. And in those agreements, they talk about the process, you know, for working together. So there are agreements. If we need to have better, clearer policy, I'm okay with doing that. I'd be happy to work on that with libraries.

And then what's the flow of communication from, right, you mentioned earlier you're unaware of, like, existing challenges. So, like, from you, like, how does that flow from where the school sits and then to the libraries and then the direct representative, right, of the school? Is it the principal? And then how does that get escalated to you?

So it's it really depends on what it what it is. So if it's a new development, it's a facility development branch would be working with libraries on the new development. There'll be questions and back and forth about, you know, access, parking, you know, all sorts of things, security and all those issues, and that gets sorted out, you know, before the development happens during planning.

If it's after it's built and it's operating and managing the library, they do coordinate with the principal because the principal, you know, this is like a library on or within the campus. So the principal would be involved in discussions and managing operation issues that affect the school. That's generally how the communications work.

Thank you. Mallory, please. Last question, Chair. Can you comment on what was shared if that's actually what's happening right now versus if you do have, you know, with the current bill as it is, how would that improve the current, like, process?

Well, I know that Jesse has spoken previously and today about we already have the right to operate and do all that. So the most recent example is our Keaʻau, our new Keaʻau library that we're building. And in that case, DOE required us to execute a right of entry as well as the MOA prior to them letting us start the construction.

I was, we were called on the day that the contractor was supposed to start on-site and told that our contractor needed to get off-site because it's their property, not ours. The place that we're gonna build where the new library is being built is gonna be physically separated. Oh, yes. It's on the same TMK as the Keaʻau Middle School property, but it's physically separated from the rest of the campus.

We fence line is gonna be completely separating the library, which is facing the roadway. And so the it will be physically separated. But part of that those agreements, they are requiring us to even commit to post construction, any kind of construction, renovation, anything that we have to get approvals from the DOE facility office for public library renovations.

Because at that point, it'll be solely a public library building, but we have to get approvals from the facilities office of the DOE, which we don't report to. The other concern is that they were also put in the agreements that we were gonna, they would, we would have to work with the principals to pay for, libraries would pay for traffic control for a preexisting access issue, pickup and drop off issue for the middle school.

Which is if every any parent would know, every school has pickup and drop off issues. And Keaʻau Middle School has a preexisting pickup and drop off issue. And they also also have a large parking lot on the other side of campus, which they do most of the pickup and drop offs. And during construction, they're doing most of it right now as well.

So this agreement, as you were navigating it, was it clear that it was based off of existing policy, you know, that justified those decisions made by the department? Or did it seem like it was kind of just happening as you went? You know, you would think it was being figured out as you went, as you were going?

We were being, we felt we were being required to commit to this in order so that we could start construction, which started two months late.

Thank you so much. Any other questions? Okay. Going on to the next bill. We have SB 494, SD 2.

This is with regards to charter schools and audits. First up, we have Charter School Commission, providing comments in person.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Ed Noh, Executive Director of the Charter School Commission. We do have some comments because we do believe that the bill is, in nature, redundant. We do have annual audits.

They do last during the term of the contract, just up to five years, and are, are evaluated during that time. I have with me our Fiscal Director, Danny...Jr, who will be on standby for questions. Thank you so much.

Next, we have the Office of the Auditor providing testimony, offering comments.

We have...Middle School, opposition. That's all I have on my list. Anyone else? SB 494, SD 2. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Actually, we don't, we don't have questions now. We, we received your testimony, so we're okay. Thank you so much. We're gonna go on to the next bill, which is SB 2391, SD 2. This is with regards to the automatic pay increases regarding our teachers.

First up on our list, we have Department of Education offering comments, in person.

Aloha, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee. Sean Bacon speaking on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and are available for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Office of Collective Bargaining, offering testimony in opposition.

Thank you, Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and Member Amato. My name is JN Mostow. I am the state's Chief Negotiator in the Office of the Gov—of the Governor. I have given you written testimony. I would like to point to two places in the sec—the Second paragraph—to begin with.

The Attorney General has also noted that statutory language was repealed in 2016 because the legislature agreed that these matters must be negotiated through collective bargaining. In the last paragraph, I'd highlight for you the part that says, "Step movement and longevity increases are negotiated each time the parties bargain a new contract. They are not automatic from one contract to the next." So, in collective bargaining, it is tabaracha every time contract expires and a new one is written.

And right now, particularly, we are on the cusp of beginning negotiations for a successor agreement with—between the state of Hawaii, the DOE, and the HSTA.

So, at this point in time, this would have a critical impact on the negotiations, which are about to commence. Thank you. I'm glad to answer any questions.

So, we have the State Public Charter School Commission—Charter School Commission offering testimony in support. So, here?

Oops. Sorry, chair. Chair, we stand on our written testimony.

...Yeah. Thank you so much for being here.

We have BNF offering testimony in opposition. We have HSTA offering testimony, support, in person.

Aloha, chair, vice chair. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HSTA. Okay. So, I'm a big women's basketball fan, and they just got a new contract yesterday in the WNBA. And while they were practicing, they wore shirts that said, "Pay us what you owe us."

And I joke the teachers could wear their shirts every day because we still remain lowest per pay. When you adjust for inflation and cost of living, teachers deserve to be made more. This bill, which we support and have supported for a long time, would go ahead and make it something standard. One year of service gets credit for what we've done, to go ahead and raise our pay, which is gonna help with teacher retention.

I, I do hear from your peers—when we came for lobby day, there were other people confused to think that this was already existing. Of course, you work a year, why wouldn't you get credit?

And to the last person's point too, on page 66 of our collective bargaining agreement, it says "The parties recognize that annual incremental step movements are a viable recruiting retention tool. Teachers are not at the top of the salary schedule and who have effective evaluation shall move to the next highest step of the corresponding class at the beginning of each school year. Annual step increase movements are subject to funding." So, it is there.

It's in our contract, and we can answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus, offering testimony in support. We have EPW, Austin Bummets. We have David Reed, individual, offering testimony in support via Zoom.

Not present. We have Fitz Patrick offering testimony as an individual via Zoom. Not present. In support. We have Teach for America - Hawaii, offering testimony in support. Two individuals from Teach for America and two other individuals all in support.

Anyone else? SB 2391, SD 2. Seeing none, are there any questions? A quick question for the, the Collective Bargaining Office. Thank you for being here.

I really appreciate it. Would you—would you say that paying teachers in good standing, year over year, is a best practice in the United States?

That is not something for me to determine. I'm the State's Chief Negotiator. That issue is determined predicated on the state of Hawaii through its legislative actions, Governor of the state of Hawaii. What I am speaking to is Chapter 89, which was passed in 1970, which allows for public sector collective bargaining in a way that's probably unparalleled to the other states. And there is an issue, and the issue was raised in 1970. Do you have collective bargaining or continue on with a civil service model? The answer was collective bargaining.

One of the provisions of Chapter 9 is it takes precedence over any other chapters and may be in conflict. In this case, I am fully ready to agree, on behalf of the Governor, to salary schedules or movements or across the board in flat dollar amounts. The point is though, once we reach an agreement—by the way, we will. Whether or not there's a strike, there will, will automatically be an agreement. That agreement is for the period set forth beginning and ending. When it ends, it expires.

The only way that you carry over from one agreement to the next is by agreement of the parties and the successor agreement that it will carry over. There is nothing that automatically carries over, it—at the expiration, expires, whatever the language says.

But you didn't answer my question about whether or not it's, it's proper to try to implement best practices.

To—pardon me?

But I take your point. You said also in your testimony in 2016, this was a reversion because in fact, it wasn't statute that teachers automatically got pay increases.

The, that was the comments of the Attorney General's Office in reviewing the 2016 act by the legislature.

So, it used to be in statute and we took it out?

Yes. And they said that it was in conflict. That's why it was removed.

Yeah. Yeah.

I—okay. I appreciate it.

I, you know, I, I just find it strange, though. If there's the best practice that's existing, that we're not gonna do it just because—why, I don't understand. I'm, I'm trying to understand, like, your, your argument as to why you don't agree with the proposal past, like, your official position. But to me, that's not a sufficient argument, but I appreciate it.

I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to state the state of the law, the state of our Constitution, and all the other things that are applied to this.

Is there a constitutional provision that says that Chapter nine?

Yes. That—there was a constitutional provision that enabled Chapter 89. Without it, it could not have existed. And that's why 89 is given precedent over any other conflicting statute.

It's good. I appreciate that. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here.

Follow-up question.

Vice chair.

Chief, the—what you said about the contract not being automatic, once it expires, will it require for a new, for legislative action again?

Yes. The Chapter 89 lays out the scope of bargaining. It lays out the process in which it must occur. It lays out timelines. It provides a provision, for instance, that in February of the year that the contract expires on February 1, if you have not reached a successor agreement, you are automatically at statutory impasse.

This contract currently will expire on 06/30/2027. We have yet to begin negotiations. We are in conversations with the HSTA over that, but they have not yet set a demand to negotiate a successor agreement, which is a part of the requirements of the statutes.

Thank you.

Thank you. HSTA. And actually, I have I still have a question for Dr. Mostow. If he, he can also come back up. HSTA.

I got you. I got you.

Please come back up. Yeah.

And just to, and I appreciate your expertise and you being here. You just indicated, though, that there's there is a constitutional amendment that says that Chapter 19, Chapter 9 supersedes any Hawaii Revised Statutes. If that's the case, then in 2016 when they reversed it, what were they doing before in 2015?

They weren't doing it at all. There wasn't a constitutional amendment. There was a constitution, well, it was. It was a convention that that amended that amended the what had existed and that created public sector collective bargaining. Alright? It was kept in the subsequent constitutional convention that occurred in 1978 as well. Again, the foundation of Chapter 89 is the implementation of the vision in the existing constitution of the state of Hawaii.

But you said that, per that constitutional provision, it supersedes revised statute, which I agree. So my question is, in 2015, when they had the old statute in place, were they not in compliance with the constitution then?

Yes. That's why the Attorney General made the ruling.

Interesting. Thank you. HSTA, do you have any rebuttals to that?

I mean, we do agree it's best practice. It's kind of done forward, and we do see, we know that we have the language in our contract now, so it makes sense moving forward. I can't speak to what happened in 2015.

But the bill says, you know, subject to funding by the legislature, which was the whole purpose of the bill, right, which was negotiated in contract. Yeah.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Members, any other questions?

Chair, if I may?

Oh, please. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Dr. Musto, if I may, please. I just wanna clarify. As the chief negotiator for the state, your primary job is to save the state as much money as you possibly can. Is that correct?

No.

No? And how would you view your role as the chief negotiator?

My role is to execute what the policies of the Office of the Governor are with respect to negotiating with all 15 bargaining units that have been formed under provisions of Chapter 89 and to negotiate a settlement that includes both the language that talks about how you do things as well as the economic issues that may be applied.

So but but it's not your job to see that the economic portion of that isn't as economically feasible for our state as possible?

No. The governor calls upon either DAGS or the Office of Budget to talk to them about what they feel the financial position of the state is to afford collective bargaining increases or things that would have an economic impact. But that's, again, they do that as an informed opinion. Ultimately, the governor of the state of Hawaii will make a decision as to whether agreement will be reached as far as the state is concerned.

So you also negotiate contracts for other units as well then. Correct?

All of them.

Okay. That's excellent. And there is no baseline agreement that carries over, for example, certain provisions? They all expire when a contract expires.

Absolutely. Before doing this, by the way, for 35 years, I was the executive director of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, which is the faculty union, bargaining unit seven. After I left that role, for another seven years, I was on the Hawaii Labor Relations Board, which oversees the implementation of Chapter 89.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing nonw. We're gonna move on to the next bill, which is SB 2125, SD 1. This is regarding emergency hires from extending their license.

First up, we have DOE offering testimony in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Sean Bacon again speaking on behalf of the department. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here. Testimony in support, in person.

Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and members of the committee, I'm Yuko Arikawa-Cross, Director of the Executive Office on Early Learning. We stand in support of SB 2125, SD 1, and I'd like to highlight a unique situation facing our public pre-k workforce that this bill helps to address. Highly qualified EOEL public pre-k teachers have to graduate from a State-Approved Teacher Education Program, or SATEP, holding a teaching license in Early Childhood Education.

While our workforce holds, may hold—holds—bachelor's degrees and may also hold an early childhood bachelor's degree and may have worked also in the field, there are currently no post baccalaureate programs in the state that would allow an emergency permit holder to obtain an initial teaching license in early childhood education. Currently, individuals have two paths towards licensure, enroll in an early childhood bachelor's SATEP and get a second bachelor's degree, enroll in that early childhood master's SATEP, and in some cases, get a second master's degree.

And currently, there is only one initial master's path through Chaminade. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have Hawaii Teacher Standards Board, which probably should have happened to go first. My apologies. Offering testimony in opposition.

Thank you. Mitzie Higa speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. I'm gonna try and keep it brief because you have my testimony, but part of the vision and mission of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board is to ensure that every child has a qualified teacher in their classroom. And because of that, when the emergency hire permit came into effect, it was way before HTSB was even around.

But the reason they put three years is to make sure that those people would enroll, in fact, in a program to become highly qualified.

Can we do, can—maybe not HTSB, but can the state do more? Sure. We can support ways for teacher retention, such as paying off student loans. We've seen some of that federally, but not in the—I think there's a bill going through right now—but also, we can expand national board teacher certified—national certified teachers to stay. We can increase mentoring and induction support, especially for emergency hire permits.

And as DOE is already doing now this year, they're providing study sessions for those who need to pass the praxis for the J1 pieces and also implementing a registered teacher apprenticeship program that I will say that everybody was in the room that they—when this came about federally—and everyone said they didn't have the capacity and HDSP is the one who stepped on board, said, "We'll do it."

And that's why we stepped on—or it was before I was there—stepped on board and then the grant was written after I was there. We received it and now we're just waiting for implementation consulting confer is finished.

So, we've been trying every avenue that we have to support teacher retention, but this is not the way because these emergency hires are being put in elementary school classrooms and special ed classrooms and, and that does a disservice to our children who are learning literacy, early literacy, and they need that support of a certified teacher.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here. Next, we have HSTA offering testimony in support, in person.

HSTA. We'll stand on our written testimony and available for questions.

Thank you. I think this says teacher, or Teacher Lounge offering testimony in support, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. We stand on our written testimony, and I'm here for any questions you may have. I just wanted to briefly add that this does not change standards or licensure requirements. It simply aligns with what many other states in the US are already doing—states like Texas, California, and Florida. And we've seen no drop in standards or challenges in those states with J1 teachers in particular.

I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here. We have testimony from 18 individuals, or 19 individuals, one in providing comments and the other 18 in support. Anyone else? SB 2125, SD 1.

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Quick question, Chair.

Vice Chair.

HTSB, please. For the SD 1, they did put in an amendment that says, "For unlicensed emergency hires to only be hired if they demonstrate the following: through continuous and verifiable progress towards satisfying licensing requirements, including enrollment in an approved teacher education program, completion of relevant coursework, mentorship," which you mentioned, "Application of necessary credentials, or other method approved by the board." Is it so—is this still not satisfactory to HTSB?

This, this is true, but, but, like, they have—they don't have any evidence to suggest that they are actually tracking this right now. They're—so, they are supposed to, but they're not. And so, there's no data to suggest otherwise that this extension is needed. And that's—we don't, we don't know. We haven't seen surveys or data or anything from the emergency hires who are currently in the system as if—or if they were even told that they need to enroll.

As HTSB, now we are telling them, hey, we're giving you emergency hire permit, make sure you enroll in a program, and we give them a link. But we need to make sure it's there because there's no data to suggest from empirical evidence. There's nothing from DOE to show that this extension is needed.

So, for the emergency hires that enrolled in the, the—so, none of these things that I mentioned, you currently track either. It's not HDSB's...

Yeah. We, we don't know who's hired at which school. I mean, we, we kind of get a report from them about where they are, but as the employer, we're not the employer, so, no, we don't track that part.

Department of Education, please. If you can kindly just comment on that and—or do you have a system in place to see where, you know, the progress as to, for the emergency hires, in their path?

So, currently, right now, when an individual is hired that has not completed a state approved teacher education program, they do have to demonstrate what we call "active pursuit" currently right now. So, they have to show us that they've enrolled in a, a state approved teacher education program, or in the process of taking Praxis. They need to basically demonstrate active pursuit on an annual basis.

What this bill really does is just it allows an extension of two additional years for them to be able to continue to show that evidence while they're working through a program here to be able to achieve. We did do a survey of some of our emergency hire teachers. Approximate 88% of the ones that are saying—that were surveyed—are indicating that an additional year or two would definitely be helpful for them through this process.

Again, we want quality. We want high-quality teachers in our classrooms. I think, really, the thing that we have to look at is if this something like this were not to go through and we have people that are currently in the pipeline and are close to finishing and they're not at that three year time—or can't do it in within that three-year time period, you know, what's the alternative?

We're gonna have to start the process all over with a new individual at this point right now. So, we really are hopeful that this is something that we can get support on and move forward to, to really ensure we have the best in our classrooms as we move forward.

Prior to initiating that survey, which is self reporting, there was nothing in place to track each emergency hire's ability to, you know, pro, you know, progress towards satisfying, satisfying, like, licensing requirements.

No. The—currently, right now, every year, they had to, in order—the emergency hires are given a year-to-year contract. Right now, they're not given a continuous contract like tenured teachers. So, in order for them to be able to renew their contract and be eligible to teach the following year, they have to show and demonstrate to the Department that they're working towards their licensure, showing us, showing us that evidence of active pursuit in order for us to renew their contract for the following year.

Are you able to follow-up with us and kind of just break down for us what kind of data you have available for the emergency hire?

Sure. We can get some.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions? We've gone to the SD 2614. Is with regards to deployments for our vets that served in wars. First, we have the office of assistant secretary events offering testimony and support.

Department of Education offering testimony and support.

Thank you for being here.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Elizabeth Higashi on behalf of the department, and we stand on our written testimony in support of the discussion. Thank you.

Next, we have the Hawaii Office of Veterans Services offering testimony in support. Not here. We have Hawaii Military Affairs Council offering testimony in support. And one individual also in support. Anyone else?

SB 2614. Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Appreciate court. Thanks.

Moving on to the next bill. We have SB 2615 with regards to school lunches, keeping cost curve down for our families. First, we have Office of the Governor offering testimony and support in person.

Standing on our written testimony in support.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Department of Education offering testimony and support in person.

Aloha Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, members of the committee. Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department stands on our written testimony in support of this measure. To reduce the statutory minimum charge for school meals from half to one quarter of the preparation cost, prevents a mandated price increase that would financially burden families and potentially lower meal participation.

The Department also recommends that the language remain as the sale of the meal shall be not less than one quarter of the cost of preparing meals, instead of being amended to no more than one quarter of cost of preparing the meals.

If the language is amended to no more than one quarter, then the Department would need to lower the current sales of meals. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we have the Hawaii Public Health Institute offering testimony in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Nate Hix with Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

I don't see any reason that the legislature needs to force high prices onto our kids' meals. We think they should be free, and so removing this provision or setting a maximum price, I think, would be an excellent change. So mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you for being here. Next have the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus offering testimony in support. We have Hawaii Food Plus Policy Purple Mai'i Foundation offering testimony in support. And we have one individual offering testimony in support. Miss Andrews, that's all I have. Anyone else?

SB 2615. Seeing none, members have any questions? You've heard this bill before. Okay. Question.

Department of Education, please. A lot of questions. One of the issues I do care about, school meals, so Assistant Superintendent, did you read this report, the office, the auditor's report on the efforts of the departments here will meet the mandate of the 30% by 2030?

So it is a pretty scathing report on the Department's current process. And, you know, there's specifically on what's very alarming is the lack of having a lack of having a budget. And so when each school and each cafeteria manager, they don't have a budget to purchase ingredients, then there's no control on the cost.

Yes.

And so when we're looking at policy like this where we're saying, like, let's like, chart, you know, like, we want to help families, then why do we have things like this in place where if we say not less than 25%, that to me reads we can charge a minimum of 25%, whereas not more than is we cannot charge more than 25%. Because right now, right, like, there's literally this pie where that shows where and I we have members have a copy of this report.

Like, in 2020-2021, your total food cost was 21 million. And just to show, like, the pie keeps growing. And then in 23-24 from 21 million, your total food cost is $82 million dollars.. And so if you divide that by the number of meals, right, the food cost just increases.

So one is, like, what is your response to kind of looking at how you are determining the cost when the auditors have found that you have no process in place to manage cost effectively?

I don't understand how that's gonna pertain to the new price. But as far as the audit, we just had a Board of Education Audit Committee meeting today. We responded to the audit. So since the audit, we do have things in place to address all of the corrective action items. I know it's kind of a separate meeting, but there were total of 20 corrective action items.

Of the 20, 4 have already been completed. Fourteen have already started and are in progress. Two, but when we submitted our response, we're not started at that time, but they've since been initiated by the Department. So we're addressing all the corrective actions. As far as the specific area about budget for cafeteria, that is an issue.

We are in the process of determining budgets for our school cafeterias as well as just signed the contract for an electronic system that's gonna account for everything as well. So, we do have things in place moving forward.

I mean, to your point earlier, like how this ties into the prices, like, literally, like, when you propose an increase in prices because costs are going up. Like, last year, the Department requested emergency appropriations of 20 million dollars. Previous to that, another 20 million dollars, and it's because there was no system of accounting. And I think, right, like like anybody.

Right? Everybody should have a budget, like, even a restaurant. Right? Like, if the head chef has to purchase ingredients because if they go crazy, then the cost of the menu prices will change. But are you able to, is that all those corrections items, are those available, can that be shared with us, what the department is doing?

What is the new policy to address as well as what's going on in this report?

Yes.

As far as the budget also, we are in the process of establishing a budget. Food costs have just caught up over the years and and just know that with all of us striving to have 30% locally sourced food on our menu, food cost is gonna also continue to go up as well. So I think part of it for our, on a more granular level at our school food services, School food service managers, they're aware of the 30% by 30 goal that we have.

But for them, when they see the cost of local versus non-local when they're ordering food, they're in a moral dilemma, in those situations, they know that our goal is to purchase a local food.

When they see that it's more expensive, a lot of them are choosing not to and go with the imported one, which is cheaper, actually, so we're actually in the process of sending out a memo to all of our cafeteria managers to really tell them to purchase the local one, which is gonna be more expensive.

I think that was what the auditor found was even with superintendent expressing support for local ingredients and the Department's, you know, efforts on the local regional kitchen is it was missing a policy. It was never really an administrative policy that was shared. In fact, the interviews that were conducted, some of the local cafeteria managers did not know that this was a mandate.

In fact, in here on on just in the first few pages, it says, DOE does not have the data about the cost of each component of the meal served at its schools. Without such data, the department is unable to determine what dishes or items, main entree, side of fruit, vegetable, raw milk, etcetera, specifically what ingredients within those categories provide the best opportunities to increase local food usage.

It goes on to say that it also doesn't tell the cafeteria manager which is local, which is imported. So that goes against what you said. Like, they choose between local and imported. And I wanna point out the second other finding was we have federal funds that come in. I think it's called favors from the federal from the feds, Department of Defense to purchase locally grown produce.

And we returned 1 million dollars in school year 23-24. We got 5.5 million dollars in credits to spend, and we didn't spend a million dollars. So that could have been a million dollars less but in general funds that we, you know, we could have spent less.

And I think that's, you know, I think what you know, was it communicated or, you know, was it because there wasn't no system in place for the cafeteria managers to know that this could have been prioritized?

Correct. And we're not disputing anything in the audit. That was, period of audit was two years ago. Since then, we have a lot of things moving forward. As far as the favors, federal money that we get, this year our plan is to spend it all down. I can't speak to why it wasn't spent down earlier.

For that, we're in the process of including more of our local ingredients on that item so that we can purchase it.

To get back to the, the being able to see if it's local or not, for most of the items, we're not able to see that if it's from the distributors because we've negotiated a price with them for each item. So it's really up to the distributor on what they wanna provide us whether it's local or not. So moving forward, the plan is to have it where we can see it with bifurcated prices so we can choose to buy the local one.

But there are some that we can see, that the managers can see, but there's a lot that we cannot.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for letting me ask questions.

Thank you. Anyone else? You see now we're gonna go on to the next bill, which is which is SB 3262 SD1. This is with regards to HSTV advice and consent. First up, we have Hawaii Teacher Standards Board in opposition.

Good afternoon again. Mitzie Higa speaking on behalf of the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. Just to keep it brief, we're in opposition because our exec no attached agency of the department of education has this process in place. Our board is already appointed by the governor and then they are, then they have a consent of the Senate. That's 17 members.

Right? And then to have the executive director is confirmed by the BOE after the, sorry, the board decides on the name to send to the Board of Education and the then the Board of Education, the chair, they decide whether to disapprove or approve of that name, and that's already in place. This is adding an extra layer of advice and consent that's not needed. So that's our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you for being here, and apologies. We have the Hawaii State Board of Education Chairman Takumi offering comments.

I always had to put rank on you, chair. Thank you so much. And for Vice Chair La Chica, in response to your concern for the school lunch program today, we got the audit committee at the board of education. It was a two and a half hour meeting. It's only on this at the item.

So it is available right now. You can go to the board website and at your viewing pleasure, see the whole two and a half hours where the department, Superintendent Tajima's shop, responded to each of the 20 recommendations in great detail. And I think once you see that, if you still have further questions, I'll obviously, you can forward it to Assistant Superintendent Tajima's office if he can, you know, expand on his responses to that.

So in the interest of time, you obviously still have a bill at hand. We have the testimony from you.

I have two comments, one general, one specific. The general comment is, as alluded to by the teacher standards board, every bill has a story. Obviously, I don't know the story behind this bill. And as was said by the teacher standards board, there are literally dozens of programs across the state, across all executive departments, good executive directors. This would be the only program, in this case, the standards board that would be subjected to the advice and consent of the Senate.

It seems to me, if you're looking for consistency and uniformity in law, you would expose every executive director of every program across the state to the advice and consent of the Senate. We don't normally do that. Cabinet members and Board Members and whatnot. It's something for the committee to think about. The specific issue is the language in front of you on the bill.

When the language says that the board of education will receive three nominees, it implies that the department the board of education will reinterview these three finalists, obviously. Otherwise, how will we pick a name? Alphabetical order? Pick a name out of a hat? No, we'd have to interview the human resources committee would have to interview these three candidates, come forward with recommendations and rank to the board.

Remember now, we meet once a month, so there's a time factor involved with this. We would forward one name to the Senate for advice and consent. If the Senate turns on that name, the bill before you get silent as to what the board of education should do. Should the board reopen it? Should they say, well, we have a number two choice?

So what the board would appreciate is some clarity and a little more prescription on the part of the committee as to what the board should do in these situations. Right now, it's silent. Silence is not good at statute. It does cry out for a little more direction. So I would respectfully suggest that you might want to amend some of the bill if you're inclined to pass it up.

Thank you, mister chairman.

Next, we have testimony from HTSB offering testimony and support in person.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of HTSB. I'm gonna kinda try to summarize here. So obviously, HTSB is an organization that represents interests of educators across our islands.

And so what we believe at HTSB is that the robust oversight in the director selection process is essential for the future of our profession. And because HTSBs are critical in their educational like, they focus our educational ecosystem, they directly impact all teachers statewide as well as educators who are entering the profession or trying to enter the profession in the field. And so the board's decisions on licensing and standards set the foundation for the quality of instruction in our classroom.

So this measure ensures that the ED is thoroughly reviewed by the Senate through the Advising Consent process like we talked about, and we believe the additional layer of scrutiny is vital to ensure that, the individual leading this influential body is properly suited for the responsibility to the job, and so HTSB would ask that you would support.

Thank you for your testimony. Next, we have one individual testifier offering testimony in support. That's all I have for SB 3262 SD1. Are there anyone else? Okay.

Members, are there any questions? We're gonna continue. On to SB 3325 SD1. This is this is, let me make sure I have the right one. This is SB 3325 SD1.

This is with regards to Medicaid reimbursements from the Department of Education. First up we have is DOB offering testimony in support in person.

Aloha Chair Woodson, Vice Chair La Chica, and members of the committee. Kinau Gardner on behalf of the Department of Education. And we stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. We request to clarify an amendment to report administrative service reimbursements on a statewide aggregate basis rather than the complex area to ensure compliance with federal cleaning methodologies. Mahalo.

Thank you. Let me see that testimony. We have some testimony from the AG in person offering comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Randall Watt, Deputy Attorney General of the department. As for describing our written testimony, I mean, as comments regarding section two of the bill, subsection B3 of the new subsection 302A, list certain DOE staff for which needs to be reporting about. The positions listed, we feel could use clarification concerning there is no assistant superintendent for the exceptional support branch of the office of student support services. There is a educational director.

So we've recommended amendments for figuring that and for what we believe is meant to be the student services coordinators in our written testimony. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. That's all I have on my list. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify for SB 3325 SD1. Okay.

Seeing none, members any questions? Any questions for the Department of Education? Medicaid reimbursements is is a very cumbersome process. It requires not only the Department of Department of Education but the Department of Health. Can you explain in a truncated fashion, like, what is the general process?

How is the DOH involved? And how many dollars did the department reimburse for Medicaid last year? How many funds have we pulled out in the last cycle?

We work with the Department of Human Services MedQuest. They're our partner agency. Currently, we are not claiming right now for reimbursement, but in the past, between direct service claiming and administrative claiming, reimbursement was about maybe 5 million a year.

5 million? Is it true though for a comparable school district, the reimbursement for this particular space is more akin to, like, $30 million, 20 to 30 million dollars.

I think if we are comparable to say,Rhode Island, and I think at full steam, they they are able to get 45 million currently. So that is a a potential once we are claiming for all related services.

Is this the reason for why we did not need federal funds last cycle?

There was some issues with the claim. You know, we have to just be very careful not to submit claims from that claim. So we are working with MedQuest to make sure that our system is compliant federally. There was some new guidance that came down also from the Federal Government CMS. So we are just making sure we are restarting our program, but making sure that we are keeping compliant using more of a medical model.

Previously, we're pursuing something that was more along the lines of a a school based model, which some states have. But in Hawaii, because of our state plan, we're gonna have to use the middle of the model.

And you mentioned DHS, but does it not require a rule change in in the Department of Health to pull down more funds reimbursable funds?

Not to my understanding. I believe it's through Department of Human Services request.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go on to the last bill of the day, which is SB 3118 SD 1. This is with regards to the interstate compacts for military children. First up we have on our list is the Office of the Secretary of War offering testimony in support via Zoom. Not present. Okay. Next, we have the Department of Education in person. Support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of committee. Elizabeth Higashi, on behalf of the department. We stand in our testimony in support of this measure that will allow us to provide the language to align with the rest of the questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you for being here. Next, we have the Military and Community Relations Office within DBEDT offering testimony in support and we have one individual also offering testimony in support. Anyone else? SB 3118 SD 1. Okay. Seeing none, are there any questions? Seeing none, recess. [Recess].

Okay. Thank you. Reconvening.

First, we're gonna go into decision-making on first SB 2024 SD 2. This is in regards to SFA and public-private partnerships. This is the companion for HB 1783. Members, I would like to pass this with the HD 1, accepting a version of the Department of Education's recommendation, which is to add a section regarding that these P3s may not complete any projects on land that's owned by the Department of Education except we'll add that it needs to be-- they can do it with the Department of Education's permission. Redacts defective date, and that will be the recommended change. Questions, comments, concerns? This is only a double, so we can <unintelligible>. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, members. Voting on Senate Bill 2024 SD 2, recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll call]. Okay, Chair. Measure's adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, which is SB 896 SD 2. This is with regards to CIP and reporting and the Department of Education to continue the conversation. Members, we're just gonna move this with the HD 1, defecting the date to July 1st, 3000. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 896 SD 2, our recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting the excused absence of Representative Kila, any members voting with reservation?

Reservation.

Reservation for Representative Olds. Any other members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Okay. Seeing none, recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Going on to the next bill, SB 2613 SD 1. This is with regards to TMKs, TMK transfers, and members, recommending pass this defecting the date. Also in the committee report, we're gonna ask if WAL take a look at this proposal, that they please take a look at and consider AG's concerns with regards to ownership and chain of title for those particular issues. Just defecting the date. Any questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 2613 SD 1, recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting again Representative Kila's excused absence for this and the rest of the agenda, any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to SB 494 SD 2, this is charter school audits. We're working with the author to try to aggregate clarity as to the intents of this proposal. For now, we'll move it. It has a defective date, so we'll just pass it on as is as we try to work with the author to see if it's still needed. Continue to pass this bill. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for vote.

<unintelligible>.

We're gonna pass it as is.

Okay. Voting on Senate Bill 4094 SD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Noting the presence of Representative Kila.

Any members voting with reservation?

Reservations.

Reservations for Representative Amato. Any other reservations? Okay, any no?

Okay, seeing none, recommendations passed.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, SB 2391 SD 2. This is automatic step increases for our teachers. We have a House companion that's also moving. We need to do some cleanup language in this bill, but for now, we're gonna pass this as is as we have a deadline here in a couple hours. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 2391 SD 2. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any members voting no? Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to SB 2125 SD 1. This is with regards to extending licensure for emergency hires. Recommendation for this is just to defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 2125 SD 1, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation?

Reservation.

Reservation for Representative Muraoka. Any other members voting with reservation? Any noes? Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, which is SB 2614, relating to high school diplomas for our armed servicemen and women. Recommendation is to pass this, defect the date. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 2614. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Any members voting with reservation? Any no's?

Recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Members, move on to the next slide, which is SB 2615. This with regards to school lunches. Recommendation is to pass this with the HD 1.

Keep back in the date. Questions, comments, concerns? Vice chair for the vote, please.

Okay. Voting on Senate Bill 2615. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye.

Any reservations? Any no's? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Going on to the next bill, which is SB 3262 SD 1. Recommendation for this is to pass unamended. Questions, comments, concerns?

Voting on Senate Bill 3262 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Any reservations? Reservations for representative Muraoka.

Any other reservations? Any no's? Okay. Seeing none, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to the next bill, SB 3325 SD 1; is to maximize Medicaid reimbursements regarding the Department of Education. Members, I would like to move this on, defecting the date to July 1st, 3000. We have some good recommendations, but we're gonna move this right now, just defect the date and work on it later. Questions comments, concerns? Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 3325 SD 1, Chair's recommendation's to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Okay. Members going on to the last bill, SB 3118 SD 1. This is in regards to the Department of Education and the Interstate Military Compact. The recommendation is to pass this with the HD 1 defecting the date to 07/01/3000. Questions, comments, concerns?

Vice Chair for the vote, please.

Voting on Senate Bill 3118 SD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Any reservations? Any no's?

Okay. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Adjourned.