Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Okay. Aloha, everybody. Welcome to the joint hearing, GVO Health and Human Services, Tuesday, 03/27/2026, 3pm, Conference Room 225, being streamed live on YouTube. Unlikely event, we have to abruptly end this hearing. Due to tech difficulties, please check the ledge website for amended hearing notice to discuss any outstanding business.

We're gonna ask everybody to please, try to stand on the written. We got a lot of multiple joints going on. We'd like to try to keep everybody moving. So with that, we'll go right into a 2114 looking at trying to establish a benefits hub first up ETS.

Aloha, chairs, members of the committee. We stand on our written testimony. You have it. Yes. We've got copies of the draft testimony we offer, with comments and happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Next up, the Department of Human Services.

Not present on Zoom care. Yeah. I guess I indicated Zoom. That's why. Oh, okay.

Okay. Sorry. Okay. We'd like to be present in all areas. Yeah.

K. Sounds good. Sounds good. Sounds good.

Comments offering a proposed draft that we work on in collaboration with ETS.

Okay. Sounds good. Let's go ahead. We have Hawaii Primary Care Association. They have written support. We also have, Aloha Care. They are in support and found two individuals in support. That's all we have on the measure. Oh, not a form of us. So, we're gonna go ahead and then, any questions?

Any questions? No questions? Okay. Just a quick real quick brief recess.

Okay. You're gonna send it.

Yeah. We're back on the 2114. I'll refer conferring with the cochair. What we're gonna do is we're gonna recommend a Senate draft one to keep the conversation going. We're gonna go amend the measure using the proposed testimony from DHS and ETS.

We'd also like to make a couple of other amendments for conversation purposes because this is gonna go further and an effective date. We'd like to shift benefits hub from a static government database to a dynamic network. We wanna introduce a formal requirement to track outcomes. We wanna replace the manual reporting with automated data solutions, expand the AI requirement from simple alerts to population level insights, which would map service gaps and actual ROI.

And then also, SMA alerted us that we need to amend section 27-43G to reflect the amendments made to 27-43A

And then we also need to make tech non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency, and there's already a defective date in there. Members, any buzzed in these comments? If not, vice chair 2114HD1 Senate draft one, I vote yes.

{Vote}

Senator Owa, excused. Measures adopted.

{Vote}

{Vote}

Okay. Thanks, guys.

We're done. Alright. Welcome back, everybody. Reconvening to decision make on two bills that we heard previously. On March 17, we're bringing them to Conference Room 225.

First up was 14HD one relating to procurement. The idea was we wanted to use this bill to address the concerns on working on the past procurement database, but we've run out of time. And Wade, you wanna address all of this subject matter stuff on ways and means.

So what we're gonna do is defer this measure, and we're gonna work in the interim with procurement office on really addressing why this database isn't up to snuff the way it's supposed to be, which is the whole intent of what the bill is trying to achieve. So defer to that one for this year.

Unfortunately, just didn't have the time to make the meaningful work needed to be done. And then finally, HB2469 house draft one. In discussion with people, there were some concerns that the working group was over expansive and was actually stepping into the realm of the legislature. What we're gonna do is we're gonna do a Senate draft one to keep the combo going. We're gonna change working group to year round legislature planning group.

We're gonna need a we wanna formalize planning and engagement process with the report, so that there is a process should both bodies adopt this. We also wanna make clear that both bodies still must adopt this change. Reports only to show this is how it would be done if they do it.

The group will consist of the following members, senate president or designee, two members of the senate appointed by senate president, speaker of the house or designee, two members of the house appointed by the speaker of the house, majority leaders of both chamber, minority leaders of both chamber.

All the other members of the working group in the original bill will be split off into a permitted group, a technical advisory committee, who operates solely in advisory capacity that will include the attorney general, the comptroller, the chief clerk of both chambers, director of the legislative reference bureau, chief elections officer, chair of the ethics commission, or any other designees or any other member organization who the group feels technical expertise may be needed for the proposal.

They'll issue an interim report for public comment before a final report, and change the preamble to discuss why we're changing the constitution of the working group, so that we can make it clear that this is an internal process, but it will have effect on other government entities, which is why we still need them in an advisory capacity. And there's already a defective date, and given the sweeping changes made, that will stay in there for the senate draft one.

We're gonna keep the blank appropriation for the group in there. However, given it is now based composed composed of internal house senate, we are asking ways and means to look at whether even appropriation may even be necessary. Okay?

Members, questions or comments on this work in progress? If not, vice chair, Senate draft one for four I vote yes.

I'll speak 2469 to pass with the amendment. {Vote}

Okay. That concludes the decision making at meeting. Hello, sir. Okay. Welcome back.

We are now on the 305 agenda. We are still convening here in Room Conference 2225. We have two resolutions on the agenda, SCR111SR104 requesting the auditor conduct an audit of no bid contracts issued by the state and county agencies under proclamations declaring states of emergencies during the six year period between 2020 and 2025. First up, we have Department of Education. Zoom?

No? They have comments on it, and they also have comments on the HR as on the SCR as well. That's all we have. There's nobody in the room to testify, so nobody to ask questions of. So seeing none, we'll move on to the next one.

SCR74, SR68. We have again again requesting the audit to conduct an audit of no bid contracts issued by the state during the said period of 2020 to 12/31/2025. All we have to testify is Department of Education. They have submitted written with comments. However, there's nobody to ask question of.

So seeing none members, I'd like to just flip right into decision making. What we're gonna do is we're gonna go ahead and defer the first one, SCR111, SR104 because they're the same as the second two, SCR74, SR68. We wanna keep that one going because this is a very prudent resolution to ensure that we're creating oversight for these non bid contracts. Members' questions or comments with oh, as is, obviously. So members, questions, comments?

If not, vice chair, no need to deferral the first one. SCR74, SR68 Senate draft one. I vote yes. Oh, sorry. As is.

{Vote}

Measure is adopted. Okay. That concludes this hearing. Thank you, everybody.