Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee this Friday morning, March 20th in Room 16. Now we have two agendas today. The first one's at 10:15. It's has a governor's message and two bills, both for Zoom and in person.

We have a two minute time limit on testimony. Often members will ask questions. So if you can hang around after after your testimony, that would be great. And if we have a major crash on the Zoom side, we'll try again on Tuesday, March 24 at 10:30am here in 016. Okay.

First up today, on the 10:15 agenda is the governor's message 574 submitting for consideration and confirmation the commission to promote uniform legislation. Gubernatorial nominee, Michael Inouye, for a term to expire 06/30/2028. First up on GM 574 is Jill Nagamine, deputy attorney general, in support. Lonnie Ewart for the Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation, also in support. Peter Hamasaki, consumer. I mean, sorry.

Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation commissioner also in support. Allison Friaoka in support. Bob Toyafuku in support. Elizabeth Kent in support. That's everyone that signed up on GM 574.

Does anyone else wish to testify on GM 574? Seeing none, there's no one to ask questions of. So, Mister Tanoue, if you'd like to come up and make a short opening statement. Morning.

Good morning. Morning Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Senator Chang. Thank you very much for considering my nomination by Governor Green to continue on as a commissioner on the as a Hawaii commissioner on the Commission to Pull Uniform Legislation. I've enjoyed my almost four years now. And with your indulgence, I would like to continue for at least another two years.

And I'm open for any questions that you may have.

Good. Great. Thank you. Members, questions? So you've been on I said you said almost four years at this point?

Yes. I was appointed by the governor in 2022.

Okay.

And then have been serving for four years.

Okay. So what do you what what's the part of it what's what are the high points?

Well, the high points is working with my colleagues here in Hawaii. The chair has been such a good mentor. And, you know, the other commissioners, Peter Hamazaki, Blake Oshiro. Who else is there? Sorry. Who else is there?

Blake Oshiro, Peter Hamasaki, Elizabeth Kent is now a life member. Bob Toyofuku, of course, one of my longtime mentors, is a life member. And even Ken Takayama, the former Legislative Reference Bureau Head is a life member as well. And, Joe Nagamine, of course, at the AG's office has been terrific. And so I would really appreciate continuing on in my relationship with them.

The other high point, of course, is the interactions we have with the national people. And I've only attended two in person and would like to attend this year in Chicago as well. The other two, I did attend virtually, but the the members of the national at the national level of the ULC are also very very incredible people. Legislators, judges, active as well as retired law professors, long time practitioners. So it's really a wonderful experience to learn from them.

Thank you. So in terms of the subject matters that you hope to cover in in the remainder of this term, when what are your priorities? If you could pull I'm sorry. If you pull the mic a little closer. Just Yeah.

I don't really have priorities personally, but I think the priority, for the state as well as for the country are several areas that I think are going to be on the agenda for the 2026. And they happen to focus on artificial intelligence, cyber security, and data security. I think those are key areas of the law that need to be fleshed out and and discussed in greater detail. I know there have been bills before this legislature addressing some of those issues.

I think it's a good opportunity for the Hawaii delegation to, learn from and work with the, commissioners at the national level as well in those really key areas.

Okay.

Thank you. Members of the questions? If not, I think I saw Allison Uyaoka flash briefly on the screen. And were you wanting to testify on GM574? Is she is she gone?

No. She's not. There was someone else with an A.

Okay. Alright. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. And members, with your indulgence, I think let's just go ahead and vote on this GM right now, and so Mister Tanoue doesn't have to wait around at all to see what happens. Recommendation is should we take a picture? Let's let's make him the nominee first and then we'll.

Also, recommendation is to advise and consent. Any questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

On GM 574, the chair's recommendation is for advice and consent.

[Roll Call]

The measure is adopted.

Okay. At the request of Senator Chang, we'll take a picture. And congratulations, and thank you for being very much served. Thank you very much. We'll take a short recess.

Okay, back into session for our 1015 agenda. Next up is HB 1519 related campaign contributions. Requires disclosure of the names of compensated officers and their immediate family members of state contractors with contracts exceeding the small purchase threshold established under the Hawaii public procurement code and grantees with grants exceeding 250,000. First up on HB 1519 is Kristen Izumi, Izumi Natal, or Christy Chang?

Oh, Christy Chang, good morning from Campaign Spending Commission.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator Chang, and members of the committee. Christy Chang on behalf of the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supports this bill but has a couple of comments regarding the removing, I guess the, the commission is concerned about removing officers and immediate family members of the county and then limiting it to branches of government, and would respectfully request that those two restrictions be included back into the bill. And then also the issue of compensated officers, narrowing it to only compensated.

We believe that they can still influence legislation and would also respectfully ask that it apply to all officers and immediate family members. And I'm available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Bonnie Kahakui for the Hawaii, the state procurement office. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, and Senator Chang. I am here on behalf of our administrator, Bonnie Kahakui. This is Jittima Laurita, a state procurement office.

Sorry, you better pull the mic a little closer because I, I can barely I, I, I'm, I get I understand I'm not the best. I can't hear as well as some people, but I can barely hear you.

Polite speaker as well. We stand on our written testimony with comments to for clarification of the language. It doesn't change any policy.

Okay.

I'm available for questions as well.

Great, thank you very much. Next is Marlene Tom for Invisible Hawaii Statewide Network. Maybe on Zoom?

Yes. On Zoom. Yes. Good morning, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Senator Chang, and other members. On behalf of Indivisible Hawaii, I am submitting testimony in support of HB 1519 HD 1.

This bill closes a loophole that, in our opinion, should have been closed a while ago, and it addresses this, this loophole by extending, you know, the contribution restrictions to officers as, as the campaign commission campaign spending commission testifier just stated. We would rather it apply to just officers, not only compensated officers and their family members.

And, likewise, we request that the limitation to the awarding or administrating branch of government be removed, that it should apply across the board and, and, of course, to their family members as well. So thank you for supporting this bill. Hope you'll advance it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Anne Frederick for Alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom. Good morning.

Aloha. I'm Aria Juliet Castillo in support. We submitted written testimony, but I just wanted to take some time to highlight a few points. Please listen to the Campaign Spending Commission.

They understand this issue better than most of us. And if they're saying the bill is not strong enough and the loopholes will remain, we take that very seriously. Otherwise, we'll be back here year after year trying to fix some of these problems and we won't have Senator Rhoads here to champion this for us. You know, I'm a registered lobbyist for the state of Hawaii. My information is public, including the areas of policy that I work on.

During session, I can't make contributions to to candidates. That restriction is not limited to the branch of government that I lobby. I cannot donate to the county council candidates on Maui or Kauai, even though I do not engage with those bodies. I have no business before them. I'm not registered with them.

That's because the standard recognizes how influence actually works. It's about maintaining public trust across the system, not drawing arbitrary lines. I kind of feel like we're gerrymandering our campaign spending laws. Asking the public to track which branch is rewarding or administrating the contract and when the contract begins and ends, it's really unrealistic. This information is not always clear or accessible.

It creates confusion, and the answer is broad, consistent ban on contractors for all state and counties, and their officers and families. You know, we've seen how these loopholes play out. Individuals like Dennis Mitsunaga and Milton Choi, they build relationships and make contributions across multiple branches of government over many years. These relationships don't just reset when someone moves from House to the LG or from the Senate to the governor, from legislative to the appointed executive branch. It follows them throughout their career.

This SB 2530, it was just amended to match the language in this current bill. So we need to amend this bill and remove the same branch limitations to make sure that that can move forward for conference. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Beppie, Beppie Shapiro for League of Women Voters Hawaii in support. Next is Chris Caulfield for Imua Alliance with comments. Alright. Then we have a page plus of individuals all in support.

The total number is support is 360 opposition, and two comments. At this point, is there anyone that would like to testify in HB 1519? If you're on the list or not? HB 1519. Okay. Members, questions?

I don't have any either. Let's go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is HB 2250. This is the claims against the state bill. First up on claims against the state is Skyler Cruz, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Chang. The bill contains 28 claims totaling a little over $19 million. There have been no new claims added since last time this bill is heard. Attachment A provides a brief description of the claims. We respectfully request passage of this bill, and I'll be available for any questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Director Tommy Johnson for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or his designee.

My name is Melanie Martin on behalf of Director Tommy Johnson... We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill.

Okay. Thank you. Next is Ryan Kanaka'ole, acting chairperson for Department of Land and Natural Resources, also in support. Ed Sniffen, Director of Department of Transportation in support. Keith Hayashi for Department of Education, also in support. Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Okay. And that's everybody who signed up on HB 2250. And would anyone else like to testify on HB 2250?

Seeing none. Member, questions? I've got some for Deputy Attorney General, please. And I have quite a number of them, so I, you don't need to try to write them down. We'll give you the list afterwards if we can't resolve them on the across the table here. So for 24 of the claims contained in the bill, the payment is to come from the general fund. Why shouldn't the departments have to pay some or all the claims out of their funds? At what point does the Department of the AG hold the departments responsible?

Senator, it's been a long standing practice for payment of these claims to come out of the general funds. I think there are several valid reasons to do so. You know, the departments are already, you know, operating under financial constraints under their existing budgets, which our plans were significantly advanced.

So to ask the departments to then have to find that money within their budgets put strains in other places. And there was a case where I think it was a department of parks had to it was one of the divisions of the Department of Land and Natural Resources had to shut down parks because they had to use funds to pay a settlement, and then didn't have enough funds to...

So you know, and well, first of all, I quibble a little bit with the long standing practice coming from general funds because within my life, within my memory of the legislature, we did, we have occasionally made the department pay.

I understand, Senator. And you certainly have been in this role longer than I've been in my role testifying on this bill. And I am aware that there have been instances where departments have had to pay, but I believe that that is the exception, not the rule.

But don't you, I mean, wouldn't it, isn't it isn't part of the reason that that court's award agreed to settlements is to encourage people not to do whatever it was that they did in the first place? And if there's no penalty for the department, then is there any deterrent effect?

Well, I think that's a difficult question to respond to. Well, settlements are reached for a variety of reasons. Oftentimes, there is no, well, in all cases, there's no admission of liability, but there are often other practical reasons to settle a case that have other factors that are taken into consideration beyond liability.

I think that, you know, there's no answer that's going to be able to address every single case. Every case is unique. There are different reasons why a state or a state employee is sued, and there are different reasons why that case might be settled. So I don't think as a blanket statement we can say that in all cases or even in any case that the state departments should be punished.

Okay. For about half of the claims contained in the bill, they are referenced in another report provided by your department. This other report states that advice memos about the claims have not been issued to the relevant departments. Why is your department not pursuing corrective action more quickly?

Our department is pursuing corrective action. We have advice letters prepared, memos prepared. What we are doing is making sure that they are thoroughly vetted and before they are sent to the department so that the advice provided is quality advice. They will be issued very shortly.

Okay. For the other half of the claims, they are not even referenced in the other reporting from your document. Why is that?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

About half of the claims contained in the report, they are referenced in another report provided by your department. So but then the other half of those claims, there's no reference at all.

If I'm, if I'm understanding...

No corrective action is being suggested for those, the other claims?

No. That's not the case. If I understand what you're referring to, it has to do with the timing, Senator, that some of the claims were settled before the legislative session, and so they would have been included in the report, I believe, that you are referring to. But a large number of claims were settled after that report was submitted, so they would not be referenced in that report, but they will be referenced in the subsequent report.

Okay. So your assertion is that you, the department will on every single claim except maybe the ones with the replacing checks, you're gonna give some advice.

Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, Senator, we are required by statute HRS 37-77.5. So we have a statutory obligation to do that.

Okay. The bill contains two claims for compensation for the wrongful imprisonment of two individuals, Roynes Dural and Alvin Jardine. Both men served significant years in prison before they were exonerated. Why did the department not either claim outright, pay their claim outright instead of... I'm sorry. Why did the government, the department not pay either claim outright instead of litigating the claims for years? I mean, the statute's pretty straightforward. It's $50,000 a year if you're wrongfully imprisoned.

Senator, I believe I can answer your question, although I have to be careful not to discuss anything that'd be confidential or attorney client work product type information. But I don't agree that the statute is quite clear. In fact, the litigation went up to the appellate courts and had to be interpreted by the courts to determine what the statutory language meant and how it was to be interpreted and applied. Once that process...

Yes. And they interpreted in the way that we always meant for it to be interpreted. So I think it is pretty clear.

Well, now that we have a court decision, it is definitely clear. And the department complied with the statute, and I believe settled the cases relatively quickly after those that decision was issued.

Okay. But in the meantime, at least one of them waited nine years and then died in a homeless camp. So I don't know. It doesn't, that was certainly not the intention of the legislature ten years ago when we passed 661B. Why did the department offer and ultimately settle one of the claims, the Jardine claim, for significantly less than the claimant was entitled to under 661B? You got $600,000, which is in this bill, but he was in prison for twenty years, so that should be a million dollars.

Well, as you point out, Senator, it was a settlement. So in lieu of taking the case to trial, there was a negotiation between...

Why would you need to take the case to trial?

You know, I think that it's not as simple as somebody was in prison, and then you issue simply issue a check if that were the case.

Why isn't it that simple?

Well, as I mentioned, there were, there were statutory language that was not clear, which had to be litigated, went to the appellate courts.

Didn't have to be litigated. That was a choice on the departments. That was a choice in the departments, but on the behalf. And it was their decision, but you didn't have to litigate it. At least not in any drawn out way. You could've just said statute says 50,000 a year. You're in prison for twenty years. Here's your million dollars.

So there's been a decision at some point in some place, not just in the current, and not just under AG Lopez, but, you know, she hasn't been AG for nine years. But there's the department has taken a very what I would consider strange and crabbed approach to this that somehow you don't, you don't have to follow the statute.

So okay. I'll take that as what it is. One of the claims concerns the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in an open large capacity cesspool in Waimanalo about which the EPA issued a citation. What investigation did your department do for this claim, and how did DAB not know there was a cesspool on the property which had been transferred to it in 2017?

This is one, Senator, I may have to go and get more information to respond to that as I was not the attorney handling that case, and I don't know the details probably sufficiently to be able to respond to that.

Okay. Two other claims concern the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where one pretrial detainee died from suicide and one inmate died. What is being done to address the issues that led to their deaths? And if, DCR, were you with DCR? I'm sorry. I don't remember. Can you come up to and maybe you can help explain what happened and why, what we're what we're doing to get it from happening again?

Not really familiar with the specific case in question, but we are asking for 35...

It's the case that's in a bill. Right? Two. Okay. It's the two cases that are on the bill, which you're here testifying on.

Senator, I could offer, I think, something, if you'd be interested.

Okay. No thanks. Yes. Go ahead.

So there were, there was a previous lawsuit, Opulento, that was in federal court concerning the conditions at DCR's facilities, particularly with respect to mental health issues and claims that were arising, for example, inmate suicides and things like that. That case was resolved by settlement, and part of the settlement, the DCR agreed to seek funding from the legislature for create, well, to see creation of new mental health positions and funding to staff those positions. That, I believe, is currently going through the legislature.

I don't know the bill number off top of my head. So DCR is working to fill those positions. Really, if you look at the expert report that was produced in that Opulento case, which you may not have a copy of, and we can provide that. The experts, you know, largely attributed the issues going on at the facilities to a lack of staffing, mental health staffing in particular. And so DCR is working in this legislative session to, again, get those positions created and funded to so they can fill those positions and address those concerns.

Yeah. So those 35 new positions are in the budget bill, and that's for psychiatrists and APRNs, advanced practice registered nurses, and also RNs, registered nurses. And that's particularly for our health care division in order to address the issues that was in the Opulento lawsuit of care.

Alright. I don't, you can go sit down again if you want. I'm moving on to a different department. There was one claim for $8 million, which is like 40% of the entire bill related to special education programming for a severely disabled student. This is a settlement, not a court judgment, which they usually are. Can you tell us more about that case and why the settlement was so big?

Again, unfortunately, Senator, this was not my case, and I don't know the case well enough to be able to respond to that. I also imagine that there would be other HIPAA and FERPA concerns about discussing that in this venue.

Okay. There's another, another DOE claim is for rent due to a company that leased property to a charter school that was closed by the Public Charter School Commission. Why is this amount included in the bill? Wouldn't the rent have been already planned and allocated?

In other words, as a refund of the funds expended or something along, or reimbursement of the funds expended along those lines.

Okay. The claim is for rent due to a company that leased property to a charter school that was closed. So I'm not quite sure what happened. Did they, somebody didn't pay the gonna pay the lessor, and that and they're claiming that... The landlord for the property where the charter school operated executed commercial lease agreement with KLA for the use of the property.

And then on July 9, 2018, the State Public Charter School Commissioner revoked KLA's charter for allegedly material violating its charter contract, and then South Point continued the KLA breached the lease by failing to pay rent. I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out what happened. So how does that, why do we get stuck with that bill?

If you can indulge me just for a moment, I'll see if I can find the answer for you.

Why don't we just put that on the list of the ones? There's a couple that you were wanting to go back anyway, so we'll just put it up put that on that list. And then, well, the other part of this, what happened to the remainder of the rent funds? But we'll put that down in writing for you. And then one claim is for the reassurance of an outdated check in the amount of a $104,000. Do you know what the circumstances are that led to someone not cashing a $104,000 check? Why would you not cash a $104,000 check?

I'd have to go look. I don't know off the top of my head.

Alright. Members, other questions on this one? Okay. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Senator. And will you be... I'm sorry. Will you be providing a list of questions?

Yeah. We'll get, we'll send them to you in writing. We'll get your, I can. We have... We'll be in touch. Thanks.

Okay. Now that brings us to the end of the agenda. We've already voted on the GM, so let's go ahead and take a look at the two bills. HB 1519 is relating to campaign contributions. This requires disclosures of the names of compensated officers and their immediate family members, estate contractors with contracts exceeding the small purchase threshold established under the white public procurement code and grantees with grantees exceeding 250,000 dollars. This is a difficult bill.

I'm going to suggest some fairly major surgery on it and put a bad date on it and see how it goes. What I'm gonna suggest is that we've got some amendments. I'd like to get rid of the threshold the monetary thresholds for contracts and grants. So the current law is that contractors, regardless of the amount, are not allowed to contribute. If we have a separate system for officers, directors, and or family members, and it's not the same as the amount for the the contractor himself itself.

I just don't think that makes any sense. So we'll get rid of the the threshold amounts. We'll apply the current restrictions on contractors to paid officers, not directors nor family members of contractors, but we will keep the grantees and paid officers of grantees, but we'll restrict it only to the officers. Then we'll add an appropriation for CSC in addition to an appropriation for SPO, which we both requested.

We'll do some conforming amendments, and we'll put in a definition of officer, similar to the one we used in SB 2530 SD 2, which will include more than just officers of boards.

It will also include officers of of corporations or LLCs, other artificial entities. Put a different bad date on it, March 2275. And then we'll emphasize in the committee report that false name contributions are already a felony. So by restricting it just to the paid officers, if they decide they if they foolishly decide to give other people money to make contributions in somebody else's name, that is already a felony and has been for years. So we will remind everybody of that fact.

So those are the suggested changes. Any questions or concerns?

I appreciate the changes.

Okay, great. Anything else? If not, Senator Gabbard for the vote.

On HB 1519 HD one, the recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[Roll Call]

Measures' adopted.

Okay, great. Lastly, on this agenda, we have a HB 2250. This claims against the state bill. Considering that we have some outstanding questions with the attorney general, we're gonna wait a couple days to do the DM.

Did we decide on a time? We'll do DM on 2254 on Tuesday, the 24th, at 10:30? At 10:30 in this room16. So we'll put off decision-making on 2250.

Alright. That concludes this agenda. We're adjourned. But Okay. For the, our 10:45 agenda, this is judiciary committee again, March 20 at 9:48 or 9 p.m., a.m.

We have governor's message 725 for Daniel Gluck submitting for consideration and confirmation as associate judge of the intermediate court of appeals, gubernatorial appointment, Daniel M. Gluck, for a term to expire in ten years. The recommendation here is the recommendation is to consent to the appointment. Questions or concerns?

Any thoughts? Senator Gabbard? On GM 725 chair's recommendation is to consent. Chair Rhodes?

Aye.

Vice chair will say. Senator Chang? Aye. Senator San Buenaventura? Aye.

Senator Awa is excused. Measures adopted.

K. We're one step closer. Congratulations. We're a charming.