House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. My name is David Tarnas. I'm the chair of the committee. Vice chair Mahina Poipoi is here, and other members will join us presently. Thank you for being here.

It really helps us do our job to have testifiers show up and give us ground truth about what's happening around the state, on all the different variety of issues that this committee deals with. If you're testifying, I would request that you keep your testimonies about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. We've got a new microphone and sound system here. The microphones are in the ceiling.

You should be able to speak just normal voice, but articulate. Come up to the rostrum and go ahead and give you a testimony. If you're testifying via Zoom, keep yourself muted and your, your video off until you testify, turn on at that point, and then turn it off again once your testimony is complete. If you have technical issues on Zoom, you can use the chat function to chat with our excellent technical staff, and they'll do their best to help you. If you're disconnected, just rejoin as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony

if time permits. If the power goes off in the building here or fire alarm goes off or something we have to take a break and reschedule the meeting, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you know what we're doing when. If you're testifying via Zoom, please do not use trademark or copyrighted images because that kicks us off of YouTube. And we don't wanna do that because we want everybody to see you when you come up to testify. And I'll ask you to come up and testify and not just stand up at your seat and say, I stand on my testimony.

Sit down. Come on up to the rostrum because people need to meet and, you know, the public needs to know who you are. And then for your testimony, if you don't wanna read your whole thing, that's fine. Just summarize it. That that that way everyone knows what you are contributing to our discussion.

And, please, refrain from profanity or any uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We got a lot of work to do, and we need each other to help do that work. So first up, we have Senate bill 83 Senate draft two, House draft one relating to hotels. This measure requires hotel keepers to provide adequate notice of service disruptions to guests and third party vendors under certain conditions.

First up, we have the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Office of Consumer Protection. Welcome.

Thank you, chair, vice chair. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. We've offered two amendments squarely within the purview of this committee. The first is remedies. Please reinsert the remedies that were taken out by the last committee.

Without remedies, this bill has no consequences for a violation. The second is, please insert a provision providing that there will be no waiver of these rights, and any attempted waiver of the notice required by this law would be void as a matter of public policy. I think many of us in the room are aware that companies with legal counsel, frequently find ways to insert provisions that will limit access to the courts into the agreements they enter into with consumers. We don't think that's appropriate here.

Let, let me add and I'll go into and summarize some of our testimony, our written testimony on this measure, because I think it's important. And frankly, what I'm gonna say is not gonna be popular with everybody, but, it's a little bit cynical for hotels to come and say that we should have no legal obligation to allow for a penalty free cancellation. We should retain our revenue by imposing a penalty. When we advertised an expectation of what your stay would be like, we knew we would not be able to deliver on that expectation, and we did not tell you in advance.

There's a basic difference here between what was expected and what was delivered. In many cases, the hotel knows. Why do I say the hotel knows? Collective bargaining agreements have expiration dates. Work stoppages require advance notice in many cases. The hotel knows they will not be able to deliver on, on reasonable expectations. In our written testimony, we call this an informational asymmetry.

I love this, informational asymmetry. It's, such a, such a modern term and it can be applied in so many circumstances. One party had the information, the other party didn't have it. It was material to the transaction. We're leaving behind the battle days of buyer beware if we enact this measure.

And we're acknowledging that a party with knowledge, with an advantage is required to disclose in certain situations. There's another more basic consumer protection principle at play that's been in play for a long time. That's the bait and switch. If you know you're advertising a good, you had no expectation you'll be able to deliver it, sounds to me like we're back in bait and switch territory.

I appreciate some of the testimony and I appreciate your committees for posting the testimony in advance so that we're able to review the testimony from the other testifiers. One of the testimonies I felt was particularly insightful and offered information that could be useful to the committee in terms of how to make this operational. I believe that was the But there was testimony in the record saying that this should be limited to situations involving lice or bed bugs. So I just wanted to make it very clear what what was the the seed of this bill. It's not lice, it was not bed bugs, it was work stoppages that occurred back in 2024.

We've alluded we've referenced that in our testimony. People arrived in Hawaii knowing that thinking that they were gonna get an get this an experience that they had saved up for, and they did not get that experience. There's a lot of information out there from those consumers who were disappointed and who expressed their disappointment. I'll leave it at that and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for taking the time to be here. Appreciate your testimony. Next person who said they wish to testify is Kekoa McClellan, American Hotel Lodging Association.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. For the record, Kekoa McClellan on behalf of the American Hotel Lodging Association and the Hawaii Hotel Alliance. We will stand mostly on our written testimony of providing some amendments that we think will make this bill more workable. Thank you to the gentleman from the Office of Consumer Protection over at DCCA for sharing his testimony. And thank you for referencing HJ's testimony today.

You know, we're not always gonna see eye to eye with, everyone in the hotel community on how policies help or hurt the work that we're doing to take care of, in our case, our 164 members and the 110,000 member employees.

But we do offer some amendments that we think will allow us to communicate when there are certain disruptions in ways that make sense and not force hoteliers and our operators to hold ourselves to a standard that might be better placed in collective bargaining or or that frankly are are not designed to truly focus on the guest experience, like create other concerns for us.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have to the best of my ability, and again, appreciate your time for the hearing today. Just to make it clear, your testimony is in opposition?

In opposition, offering some amicable amendments.

Offering amendments. Just wanna make sure everyone in TV land understands. Thank you, Chair. Because they probably didn't have a chance to read your testimony.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. McClellan. Next, we have Stephanie Donahoe on Zoom. Welcome, Stephanie. Good to see you.

Good to see you too. Aloha, chair. Aloha, vice chair, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in writing and via Zoom, and apologies. It's raining quite hard here in Hamakua. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. We hear you just fine. With that little nice ambient noise, it's not a problem.

Thank you very much. As I tried to explain in our written testimony, we believe that you are putting together multiple levels of service disruption in properties, we have a property that has more than 600 rooms, but they are in separate buildings. So if we had a pest infestation in one of those buildings, the typical policy would be to remove someone from their room who says they have a pest infestation to close it and the neighboring rooms irritation.

And to move on through operations with that pest control agency so that we are not disturbing the experience of the other guests in the remaining five ninety seven rooms. We believe that actually does take care of the challenge that you are trying to address with this bill without ruining the reputation or the experiences of guests in other rooms.

In terms of labor disputes, we have some challenges with that as well because not all hotel properties have unionized labor, but they are all usually within the same areas. So for example, in the Cole Holocaust, I have four resort areas, but different levels of union engagement between those hotels. So there might be a labor dispute at one hotel that could impact another hotel that has no agency in making any headway with that labor disputes, not their labor agreement. It's not going on.

But the impact could be for both. Is it something in this bill that you would want all of the hotels to have to identify even if they're not involved in the dispute? Because the let's say it's a strike, if it's happening, David, for example, at Waikoloa Road, as we head into Waikoloa Resort, there are multiple properties down there. So with each hotel, even if they weren't involved in the dispute, need to be involved.

And finally, the last point we'd like to make is that there are a lot of public facing agencies that have had labor disputes, but hotels seem to be the only ones that is called out in this particular bill. Nursing associations. We've had strikes with transportation. When I worked for the county of Hawaii, we had strikers in our building and government. But in this bill, it's only it's only categorized for hotels. And we believe that unfairly puts hotels under a microscope when other places might have labor disputes as well. I thank you so much for the opportunity to provide why we're opposing SB 83.

And I thank you for the edits that were made previously because other disruptions such as elevator failures or if the pool was closed, those were part of initial parts of this bill that were taken out because no matter what, we are trying to make it right. Our hotels don't exist and our business doesn't continue if we don't make it right. But what right looks like might not be able to be prescribed by law.

Right is really dependent on an agreement between the person who has made that reservation and the hotelier. Right for one person might be returning their money. Right for another might be they're only here for a week. They don't want their money back. They want an alternate experience. So right can't always be prescribed in a one size fits all manner. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, miss Donahoe. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 83? Miss, why don't you come in the back first. Yes. Come on up to the podium. Introduce yourself, please.

I'm Jolie Tokusata. I'm with Unite Here Local five, but I wanted to give my personal opinions on this bill. I am a front desk worker, former front desk worker, and I felt the wrath of a guest when when, we've had major construction, and we didn't notify the guest ahead of time, you know. And, you know, things like that, they really upset people when they they fly minimum 2,500 miles from the West Coast or 4,000 from the East.

You know, it it does make a difference for us to inform the guests that they're gonna be their their hotel experience is gonna be less than what they expected. And and as a worker, I would be, like, squeezing, but but worthy, but what they're gonna could I have to tell them too when they come in. Right? Another thing is I've also been a striking worker. And when we you would think that they would be extremely upset with us that we are on strike. And when we talk to them, though, and we tell them that, you know, what we're there for and everything, they appreciate the dialogue.

So, you know, that it it is a good thing to actually speak to people about what's gonna go on. And and also too as a hotel worker, I used to love my hotel. I worked there for25 years before I started in working elsewhere. But, you know, we all love our hotel and our jobs, and we don't want to kill our business forever. You know?

We just wanna make sure that the guest has expectations that they are that that they're fulfilled and they would be willing to come back, you know. And I think I can't remember what the last thing I was gonna say, but yeah. Yeah. No. I can't remember. But thank you so much for letting me speak.

Sure. Thank you very much for your testimony. Sir, introduce yourself, please. Hello.

My name is Rodney Nakashima. Thank you, chair, vice chair for letting me speak. I'm a community member. I'm also a hotel worker. I like transparency.

If I'm a paying customer and I'm visiting someone, I would like to know. I would like to have the choice to decide if I wanna go there or not or I wanna be able to cancel. If I'm saving all my money to go on a trip and I'm expecting an experience coming to Hawaii. You know? And there's a disruption, or there's something that's that might interfere with my experience.

I would like to make that decision to say, I wanna come or I wanna reschedule until this is all. It's any type of service because my expectation is that what I'm paying, I'm gonna receive. So if I don't receive a service or an an activity because there's some type of disturbance, I want that decision. So if I still decide to come, at least I know that I won't have certain services.

As a paying customer and with the law of spirit, that's just the right thing to do.

I would like to be law of honor. It's just a fair thing to do. It's the Aloha thing to do. It's the part of me. I'm a baby boomer. I was born in 1960. My parents always taught me to tell the truth, and you have the power to decide if you wanna do this or do that. And I I save money. That's my profit. My savings is my profit.

And I wanna make sure that when I do spend it, that it pays for whatever I'm spending. And and traveling is not cheap. It's not cheap. And as Hawaii, we the last thing we need to do is to ruin the the spirit of Allah, face of paradise, the enjoyment of Hawaii, and the services that the hotels have. I want that decision. I want that. Thank you for letting me share.

Sure. Thank you for your testimony. Anyone who like you, sir, if you could let the our staff over here know your name. For those who had not signed up in advance to provide oral testimony, like, the last two testifiers, if you could provide your name to our vice chair staff over here at the table, then we can keep that for the record. That way we we have accurate record of who testified, as we move forward. Sir, you're next.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Sadosky with Unite Here Local five. I appreciate you considering this bill. We we feel like this is a very important bill for consumer protection in one of our state's most important industries. You know, we wanna make sure that guests who come to Hawaii have a good experience and in some cases they don't, in some cases there are disruptions.

But the more they know about those things beforehand, the more they can plan around and the better the better it looks for the whole state really. Not only for hotels, not only for workers, but but for all of us, for people wanting to come back and to have, you know, some feeling that Hawaii is a reliable place to come. And so we feel like this bill really in its original form, it really attempts to protect consumers in in a number of these different categories. Right?

So whether it's labor disputes, whether it's bedbugs, whether it's construction, you know, we think these are things that consumers do have a right to know and it's something that they should be informed about.

Every time we've talked to them, or many times when we've talked to them that they were not informed, they were very upset about this. And, you know, having that information and having the ability to do something about it, the ability to get some sort of recourse whether it's to get a refund or something else I think is extremely important, right? It gives them options. It's not just, you know, a notification where, you know, it's like we let you know. Thanks for letting us know.

But, you know, there's nothing you can do about it anyway. So, you know, consumers need that. Right? And, and I think hotels need to have the responsibility and there need to be, consequences for not informing guests. I mean, when we found, in instances where we found hotels not informing guests about service disruptions, it was very difficult for the guests.

It was a difficult situation. And, you know, it was something in many cases that hotels could have easily done. And I think, you know, in terms of what, the remedies are, I mean, you know, a previous testifier talked about making sure we do what is right and I think that that's correct, but I also think about it's not just a question of what is right, but it's a question of what rights you have as a consumer.

Because you're not gonna be able to get a decent settlement or a decent agreement from a hotel some rights to fall back on and some real teeth to it. So we're asking, that this committee would please put back, the teeth in this bill about the penalties, about the consumer's ability to change their reservations or get their money back, and to, bring back some of those items that were struck from the list of service disruptions such as construction work.

We think that, you know, in terms of unavailability of amenities or resources, like I I really do think, you know, we can have further discussion about what exactly that means but certainly things like restaurants being closed or other other amenities being closed for a certain amount of time, like that takes away from the experience that people feel like they paid for. So Yeah. We'd very much appreciate your your consideration of those amendments, and thanks again for taking this bill up.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Yes. Please come on up.

Hello. My name is Ivan Louie Kwan. I represent the Hawaii Hotel Alliance and a number of hotel chains. And so I'd like to join the test of the written testimony submitted by AHLA and But I'd also like to maybe, emphasize, having heard some of the testimony today, that the the hotels are very much in favor of transparency. They're very much in favor of protection of of consumers. They're very much in favor of fair treatment of their guests.

If they're not, the guests will not come back, and they won't really have a business. So I think we're aiming for the same thing. The real concern we have and the reason we object to this bill, particularly in its present form, is that it it it doesn't provide for a fair and effective implementation and execution of what we seek to do here.

Just for example, as we say as it said in in the written testimony by and EHLA, It's not that easy to notify guests, particularly when the hotels don't have contact information from the guests because those guests have been booked through online travel agencies. Just as one example of how it's difficult to implement and to execute what we're trying to achieve here.

The second thing is, just by way of examples, in the bill, they talk about, banquet halls and meeting rooms and so forth. But the fact is that they're very defined, very detailed contracts between the people who are running those rooms and the hotels. And so what you you you'll be providing will be legislation that will impact those contracts. The third thing that's that's a concern to the hotels is

that we how can you communicate with with the, you know, an event when unless the event is known, it has to be a known event and and be more better quantified. And so those are some of the examples of concerns we have, chair, you know, with with with the bill. Again, we're not we're not opposed to transparency, totally unopposed to taking care of the guests because we want the guests to come back, and treat them fairly. But these are the concerns we have, and that's the reason we're opposed to this bill.

Thank you, mister Louie Kuan. Could you do me a favor and provide your name to our staff? That'd be great.

We'll do that.

Thank you, mister Louie Kuan. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Questions?

No. Chair.

Yes. Reverend Cochran?

Mister Kekoa McClellan?

How about that?

Hi. Aloha. Thank you for being here.

Thank you for being here.

Yeah. I'm always happy to be here. So I'm just having worked 33 years in the visitor industry myself knowing what this is about. So I but back in the day, there weren't these third party, so to speak, Expedios of the world booking.

That's correct.

So you're saying that now, I mean, there's no way to if you had notifications of closures, the pool, or, you know, these things, you don't really have a way to notify them, that third party per se entity? Is that

That's a really good question. I I think it's kinda layered. And yes. The short answer is yes and sometimes no. Right?

We in the hotel industry, rely on third party travel providers to help us book out our rooms. It is expensive, very expensive for our members to do. Right? They they take a chunk of that room rate. That then takes away from what we can do on on-site with with our properties.

And they control their distribution chains. And, of course, there's communication back and forth. And there are ways of ensuring that we're communicating well. And and in the vein of what the spirit of this is I'll give you an example. Right?

Today at lunch, spring break so my daughter is an intern at the Macfarlane Group because spring break. And we got to the restaurant. She wanted to eat. She saw the special. It was a turkey and some other kind of sandwich.

Right? And we ordered it and they said, I'm so sorry. We've already sold out the special. Right? So they've advertised that they have this This is today.

This is two hours ago. They've advertised that the sandwich is for sale and and it wasn't for sale. Should we penalize that restaurant because they didn't have any more of the special? Should we penalize the steakhouse because their favorite steak is no longer on the menu because they ran out and there was some supply chain issue? I think when we're trying to communicate the myriad things that could happen at a hotel property, it it gets very sticky.

And as written, at any point, our communication, for example, in marketing Hawaii, which hotels do. Right? They they try very hard to coordinate with the state as the state is spending money to attract the right kinds of tourism, tourism which is regenerative. Because as mister Louis Kwan pointed out, we want people to come back. Yeah.

Right? By definition, we want people to come back. If at any moment, a call for a strike can require a hotel to then go out and externally message that things are not as advertised, whether the strike happens or not, that really harms our ability to market Hawaii to the kinds of consumers that we we want here. Good high rate hotel paying guests.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah. Real quick follow-up question.

Did that answer your question? Yeah. Okay.

So then the notices that you're saying it should be a required actual known disruption versus, I think you just mentioned, a potential strike to happen. Is that that one bullet point in your testimony?

I I would refer you to our testimony. So, again, it it is nuanced, and and thank you chair for for being generous with with my explanation and and the time here. For for our members, we oppose the bill and have offered amendments that we think would make it more amenable for us to move forward as as written.

And, chair, that's fine. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, representative. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Thank you to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill and just so everyone knows, we're gonna be hearing all taking testimony on all the bills and we'll do decision making on the bills at the end of the hearing after all testimony has been received on the bills.

Senate Bill 2798, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to law enforcement. This measure makes permanent the Agricultural Enforcement Pilot Program established pursuant to Act 235, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025, and renames the program as the Agricultural Enforcement Program and expands the program statewide. First up, we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the of the committee. Riley Yu from the Department of Agriculture Security. We stand on our written testimony and support.

You wanna give us the highlights of your testimony?

Just it's a lot it's hard for the farmers, you know, out there with the crimes being committed on top of their farms and hard to regulate that. So the agriculture enforcement program would be very helpful and, you know, ease the minds of a lot of the farmers out there in our communities.

Thank you for that summary. Next, Department of Law Enforcement. Not present. Testimony has been received in support. Next person, Nicole Galase, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council on Zoom. Hello, Nicole. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair Tarnas, vice chair Coipoy, and members of the committee. The Hawaii Council My name is Nicole Galassi. I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Council. We support this measure because while the pilot was needed to work out the kinks and, all the details, we know that this program is a high need across the state, not just on Oahu and Hawaii Island where the pilot is.

We do appreciate working with the Department of Law Enforcement, and we recognize that they need enough resources to be able to truly help agriculture. Please make this program permanent and statewide, but ensure that the program is funded to fulfill its full needs. Because on top of food production being a high priority for the state, even higher than that should be the safety of our community. Mahalo.

Thank you, miss Colace. Next, Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau. Welcome, mister Miyamoto. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have our written testimony and support, and I think the cattlemen, said very well what the need is. This is a pilot. We'd like it to be permanent.

We've got farmers and ranchers on every island. Right now, this program only covers Oahu and Hawaii Island. Again, ag crimes is more than just theft of crop, theft of equipment, trespass, vandalizing vandalism, poaching. Again, right now, we see the impact. There is engagement with department of law enforcement, with our farming community.

So we like this, again, to be made permanent. The name change is just taking out the word pilot. We would like it a permanent program so that we have essential ag police to help address what is about a $12,000,000 impact problem to our farmers and ranchers here in Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Certainly. Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2798 in the room or on Zoom? If not, questions members?

Sure.

Yes.

Sorry for mister Miyamoto. Oh, and sorry. Miss Galassi was here Tuesday. Thank you for being here in person. And so I so it's been successful so far. The pilot, you've seen some, benefits. It's, it's fulfilled, you know, what it's set out to do to deter crime and things.

For the record, Brian, we have one of Hawaii Farm Bureau represented. Yes. We have we see a a higher level of engagement, and not to say our county police weren't engaged, but, again, there's a a lot of other crimes. So to see a dedicated program specifically for agriculture, working with the the producers and getting to know the producers and the community, we think even in its early stages, because this is 2025.

One of the things that we have seen that they have implemented already is working with Department of Agriculture Biosecurity on the ag tip line.

They've come out to different farms and ranches ranches to to to, put drones in to help with some of the law enforcement, capabilities. So, again, we see this level of engagement with the ag community in just a pilot program. So we know that that ag crime is present on all islands. So we'd like to expand it already. We think that we've we've seen some level of success already with the pilot program. And, again, from a equity fairness standpoint, there is agriculture crime on every island.

Okay. Thank you for those comments. Sure. Can I get a follow-up with miss Galase, Maui cattle or sorry, cattle

Yes, representative? Hi.

Aloha, miss Galase. So I just wanna know I mean, Brian pointed out the farming aspect of agriculture, which is great. And so I wanted to just, have you comment on the ranching aspect and any type of crimes or incidences that may have occurred there and how this has helped or not helped or, you know, just

I will agree that there has been a benefit to this. One of the benefits is that we're learning from each other. The Department of Law Enforcement is learning more about the difference of agricultural crime compared to crime that happens in the suburbs, the vastness of the ranches that they have to tend to, how long it takes to get out there, some of the issues that they've been dealing with.

On the other hand, our ranchers are learning what things we need to do in order to get a successful prosecution because there is a dedicated team at the Department of Law Enforcement that we're able to call and say, hey. How come this didn't happen?

They're able to share with us what needs to be done. We're also understanding what needs to be collected just in order to make a case that's actually successful. The reason I say that in my testimony that we should make sure that they're fully funded is that, yes, this is a pilot program. So they are just learning what is needed, and they're finding out how vast these islands are and what's needed to tend to these these large landscapes. Education is still needed. Funding is still needed to cover all of the areas, but it's something that's really important because it's the safety of our farmers and ranchers.

Thank you. Sorry. And a follow one quick follow-up. Miss Galase, you mentioned DLE has a dedicated team. Who who is that? I mean, is it a separate branch division within DLE that you deal with with crimes?

We've been fortunate to work directly with director Lambert as well as with his deputy directors. They have been really involved with educating us and coming out to educate themselves. And so they have been responsive when we reached out to them. This is something that we haven't had before. Like the Farm Bureau said, it's not that the police department wasn't dedicated to or didn't see ag crimes as a priority.

It's just that they had so many other things on their plate as well. And so the Department of Law Enforcement is seeing that it's not just, a cut fence. It's put the potential of someone coming onto someone's ranch with a deadly weapon and not knowing what the outcome of that might be.

And one quick follow-up, sir, if you don't mind. Last one. I swear to god. Don't care. Don't care, participation with this deal. Oh, wait. Miss Galassie oh, sorry. It was to you. Sorry.

Sorry. I thought that you're

No.

No. The asking Doe Care.

That, you know, with DLE and and, director Lambert and stuff, in conjunction with Doe Care, or is there, like, a delineation line on who's, you know, Kuleana it is or not?

From what I understand, DLE is working with the county police departments as well as DOCARE. I haven't been involved in those, but it is really important that they do that because, like I said, these are vast land areas. It takes a long time to get to places. So if they can work in conjunction with each other, hopefully, we can leverage the resources rather than having to waste time trying to get to some place.

Okay, great. And thank you.

Thank you, chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Any other questions? If not, thanks. We're gonna move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2593, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to the Law Enforcement Standards Board. This measure exempts certain positions of the Law Enforcement Standards Board from the State Civil Service Law and collective bargaining requirements. First up, we have Adrian Dhakhwa, Law Enforcement Standards Board.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Adrian Dhakhwa from the Law Enforcement Standards Board. Standards Board is in strong support of this bill. It will, this bill will help us fill the three positions that we're asking for that we finally have funding for. Currently, the board has a staff of one, the administrator.

This bill will help get us. We are on the clock. There should be statewide law enforcement standards. Passing this bill will help us fill those positions and fill them sooner rather than later. We hope you will also hear 2519 as well. Happy to answer any questions.

Could you explain what the three positions are?

The three positions are the lead investigative agent, the lead administrative manager, and the training and curriculum coordinator.

Thank you, Mr. Dhakhwa. Next, we can hear the administrator of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board, Victor McCraw. Welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Victor McCraw. I'm the administrator of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board. I tried to be as detailed as I could in my written testimony. I'll add as available if you have any questions to ask me of that.

I just wanna emphasize the fact that what the board is doing is a new governmental function in Hawaii. It's fairly unique, and separate from anything we've done, which addresses one of the oppositions to the bill, which is that we were removing positions from the civil service. These positions were never intended and not designed to be within a collective bargaining.

And really need to be exempted and excluded, if we were to avoid any perception or actual conflicts of interest, whether they be legal or ethical, in these employees carrying out the wishes and the decisions of the board, which is to determine who is and who is not qualified to have the authority of peace officers in the state of Hawaii, which is pretty important in itself. I appreciate your time, and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Government Employees Association. Mr. Sabas, welcome.

Chair, Members. Nui Sabas for for HGEA. We submitted written testimony in opposition to this measure. We're opposed. Exempt employees are are considered at will and they do not go any, they do not go through any merit based hiring.

And furthermore, I'd just like to make a few more points. We believe this measure further legitimizes a DHRD workaround or an agency or a board in this case, works around our civil service hiring process because the current civil service system is not flexible or competitive.

Furthermore, we've seen a pretty significant increase in civil in exempt positions in state governments. And that not only undermines our civil service system, but creates more members possibly within our union, which impacts our ability to advocate for our membership.

And furthermore, I would like to address part of this bill which looks to exclude employees from collective bargaining. There's currently language in Hawaii Revised Statues Chapter 896 that has criteria for whether an employee should be included in collective bargaining or excluded in collective bargaining.

So we stress that the board kinda go through that process, and the HLRB or the Hawaii Labor Relations Board serves as the final adjudicator in deciding whether employees should be included or excluded. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? Yes. Go ahead, Rep Cochran.

Sorry, Mr. Victor McCraw. Alright. Aloha. So hearing the concerns of HGEA and calling it some kind of workaround or they believe it should be civil, should be civil service, and you're saying they aren't. So how do you, and there's a some type of chapter or something that points to it. What are your comments in regards to these concerns?

Thank you for that question. These three positions are going to be dealing with some very specialized types of work. All three positions are gonna be privy to confidential information. They're gonna know whoever your law enforcement officer in the state is, whether they're undercover or not.

They're going to have information about what they've done in their careers, whether that be good or bad, through the investigations, that my agency will be conducting. And my training coordinator is going to have access to and will have developed every test and every test answer for every certification exam for police officers in the state.

I believe that their work, like I said, is very unique and creates a real conflict of interest problem if they were also part of a collective bargaining group because they are going to be making determinations and their work will be used by the board to make certification decisions about whether police officers are employable or not by their counties or the state in their capacities.

Okay. Well, thank you for that more in-depth description. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2567 Senate draft two house draft one related to petitions to temporarily restrain and and join harassment of an employee.

This measure establishes a two year pilot project to authorize public employers to petition for temporary restraining orders and injunctions against employment related harassment of certain public employees, and it appropriates funds. First up, we have Department of Human Services, not present in support. Next, the judiciary. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha chair and committee members. Nick Seberson, staff attorney for the Hawaii Supreme Court testifying for the judiciary in support of this bill. This bill empowers public employers to pursue protective orders on behalf of public servants who experience work related harassment, ensuring continuity of operations, and maintaining a safe work environment. The judiciary strongly supports this bill and otherwise stands on a written testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you folks may have.

And if you could just highlight why, this is coming forward now because this is a a recommendation from the judiciary.

Yeah. There's been an increase in recent years in public servants experiencing harassment related to their duties as as public servants. So this bill aims to lessen the burden that those employees would face to have to go to court on their own, pursue protective orders, and it allows the public employer to do that on their behalf and, you know, get them the protection they would need from that work related harassment and also, again, ensure the continuity of operations and provide, a more stable and, safe working environment.

Thank you very much, mister Seberson.

Thank you.

Next, Hawaii State Department of Education.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Port Pointe, members of the committee. Sean Tajima, assistant superintendent testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure because it empowers the department to further protect our employees from work related harassment and threats of violence. The department really appreciates the language of expanding public servants to include all Department of Education employees. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We stand by for questions.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Government Employees Association. Mister Subhas.

General members, Nui Sebast for HGA. We're in a support of this measure. This is something that we've been advocating for for a few years now. And we do we do appreciate the amendment that was made, that would, expand the definition to all public service. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mister Kamala Law, UPW, welcome.

Chair Tarnas, 26 chair, members of the committee, Kamala County, Kamala, United Public Workers. We have our written testimony and support. We really have nothing substantive to add to to the testimony of previous speakers, But I will say this, you know, we find ourselves living in strange times, and it is very rare for both the exclusive representatives as well as employer to agree on a specific bill. So for that very reason, we urge you to pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Delight to see all this supportive testimony from disparate interests.

Okay. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 3140 house draft one relating to the State Fire Council. This measure replaces the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations with the Department of Law Enforcement as the department responsible for budgeting, administrative staffing for for the State Fire Council. First up, we have Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair Poi Poi, and members of the committee. My name is Lynn Araki Regan, and on behalf of the Department of Labor, we strongly stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. It aligns with the state fire council statute with the intent of three act three zero two, which transfer which transferred the state fire council and the state fire marshal to the department of law enforcement from the department of labor and industrial relations.

We believe that this was simply, an oversight last year, whereby they mistakenly overlooked to transfer the budget budgeting administrative staffing for the State Fire Council to the department of law enforcement. So thank you.

We have the opportunity to fix our mistake. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony in writing from the Hawaii State Fire Council in support. Anyone here? And next, we have the office of the state fire marshal. Fire marshal herself. Welcome, miss Dori Boot. Appreciate you being here. Please proceed.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I stand and

Please introduce yourself to the point.

Dori Boot, the state fire marshal. So, I stand in support of this bill. It's largely a housekeeping as, our DLIR representative mentioned also that this was simply an oversight that the people moved over to the Department of Law Enforcement but not all the money is dead for the State Fire Council. So we're requesting support and approval of this bill.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions members? If not, yes. Gretchen Mizzou.

Who's the first testifier?

Oh. Okay. Regan. Yeah.

First one is the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Yes.

I just wanted to confirm with this transfer, does DLE get the budgeted amount also?

Yes.

Okay I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Follow the money. Very important. Thank you, Reg Shimizu. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much.

Thank you to all the testifiers. Thank you to our Fire Marshal for being here today. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2057, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to law enforcement. This measure prohibits law enforcement officers from using any personnel or funds originating in the state to assist or facilitate conduct by federal immigration agents that is for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement or exceeds their law enforcement duty or authority.

It prohibits law enforcement officers from assisting or cooperating with or allowing resources to be used to facilitate federal immigration agents engaged in operations with the purpose of civil immigration enforcement or that target individuals or entities engaged in certain activities.

First up, we have the Office of Public Defender in support. Not present. Members, I refer you to written testimony in support. Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Not present. State Health Planning and Development Agency in support.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Representatives. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Terry Visperas on behalf of Dr. Jack Lewin, administrator for our State Health Planning and Development Agency. We'd like to stand in strong support our testimony, written testimony that we provided.

Could you summarize why you think it's a good idea?

Sure. You know, family, friends, and everybody. I mean, this bill could help people feel safer when using important services like schools, clinics, and for the hospitals. You know, it's making easier for families to get medical care that we're concerned with, vaccinations, mental health support, and other basic services, which help protect both the individual and the community health. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have testimony from United Here Local 5. Anybody wanna provide testimony in person? Yes? Come on up. Tag team.

Aloha. Once again, Ben Sadoski from Unite Here Local 5. I think we wanna stand on our written testimony in strong support of this measure. We feel like, at this time, you know, there's a lot of questions as far as what's going on with ICE and what the future of that is gonna look like. And we think that for the state law enforcement or local law enforcement get too involved with what they're doing, we really have to examine it.

I mean, we've seen our members in other cities in Minneapolis, in Los Angeles, in Washington DC have seen directly some of what's going on, and it is frankly terrifying for them and for everybody around them. So we're, you know, hoping to have some common sense things like this to reign in what we see as extreme overreach right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sadoski. Next person said they wish to testify is Tina Sablan, Legal Clinic. We have written testimony in support on file. Please refer to that, Members. Next person said they wish to testify is Liza Ryan-Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights on Zoom. Is Tina Sablan on Zoom? No. Okay. Liza, it's all yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We're gonna stand in strong support on this bill. Just as a reminder even to bring things to, I was getting screenshots this morning of our Hawaii National Guard in tanks going through Kalihi. Folks were commenting that this was really scary and they didn't know who these individuals were.

And what I take from that and what we have seen time and again is that it's very, very important for our local law enforcement to be identifiable. And what's more than that for everybody in our community to know what the kuleana of our local law enforcement is. They have no jurisdiction over our federal civil immigration law.

And therefore, it's really important that as a state that we make it very, very clear that they have, that our local law enforcement have their specific responsibilities while the federal government is continuing to use, for example, sending Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to act as TSA agents at airports across the country.

As we continue to see the expansion of the authority of Department of Homeland Security into many, many areas that they have not historically had responsibility, it's therefore more important that we clarify what our local law enforcement are here for. And that's to keep our community members safe and to enforce our, enforce our criminal law here in Hawaii. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, ACLU of Hawaii, Leilani Stacy or Leilani's representative. Mandy, please proceed.

I'm always proud to be Leilani's representative, but I'm sorry, I'm sorry that she's not here. Mandy Fernandes on behalf of the ACLU Hawaii. We strongly support this measure. I know you've seen a lot of me this session, so I'll try to keep it brief and give you a break. We strongly support this because, like the previous testifier said, when ICE has been in other communities, there it sows a lot of distrust, and so people are afraid to go school.

They're afraid to go to the doctor, and they're not sure where the division where our local police end and ICE agents or other federal agents begin. Right? And so knowing who to trust, especially when we have such small and tightly knit communities here in Hawaii, it's not a good idea for local law enforcement to be carrying out coopted for civil immigration purposes.

Just wanted to remind the committee and everyone in the room that the mere being in this country without appropriate legal status is a civil offense. It's a federal civil offense. It is not a crime. And what this would prohibit was the is the commandeering of our local officials for civil immigration efforts. We think this is incredibly important in this moment and we hope you do move it forward. We'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Fernandes. Next, we have Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'll stand on my written testimony. I do wanna just reiterate from Maui. You know, I was on social media just now during this hearing, and people are on Maui social media bulletin boards concerned because the National Guard is here doing disaster relief after the last storms.

They're afraid that it's federal agents. They're afraid that the US military is coming in for the EPO Maui tip line on Maui. There's concern about ICE again being deployed into our airports and the impact that can have on our community. We don't want to have our people afraid.

Members of our community afraid to travel to Oahu for necessary medical care and that's the kind of thing that can happen when there's confusion about federal overreach and the involvement of our local law enforcement. So this is a really important bill, and I thank the opportunity to testify and in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Andrews. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, just to let anyone know, we've received 55 testimonies in support, two in opposition, one with comments. Any questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers.

Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2,146 Senate draft one House draft one relating to traffic infractions. There's two parts to this bill. First part establishes a traffic fines task force to examine the Finnish tiered traffic fines system and determine whether a similar system could be implemented in the state and provide recommendations on how it could be best implemented.

Then part two basically repeals a law that we had passed some years ago that so that by repealing that law, it would impose person's ability to obtain or renew a driver's license or to register renew the registration of or transfer or receive title to a motor vehicle as a consequence of unpaid monetary obligations under certain circumstances. On this measure, first up, we have the judiciary. Welcome.

Welcome. Aloha chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Dana Nakasato testifying on behalf of the Hawaii State Judiciary. We'd like to stand on our written testimony, which takes no position on the content of the bill, but we do have some comments, especially in terms of Section two. In summary, we're basically asking for sufficient time to make the necessary software changes to update our system so that the the stopper functionality is restored to to the system. I'm happy to

You used a technical term called stopper. You wanna explain that, Chris, to everybody who's watching?

In our system, for the case management of traffic cases, we have the ability to send data to the Department of Motor Vehicles, which handles, driver licensing as well as motor vehicle registration. And so, there is a possible penalty, where a person would be unable to renew their driver license or to register their motor vehicle with the DMV until they have satisfied certain conditions of their traffic cases. So a stopper is basically a flag on that person's record over at DMV, so they cannot review their driver license or register their motor vehicle.

Thanks. Appreciate the explanation of that very technical term.

Thank you for the the the opportunity to comment. Certainly, I'm available for any other questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Jamie Detweiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women on Zoom. Please proceed, miss Detweiler.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Aloha, chair Tarnas, vice chair Poipoi, Jamie Detwiler from the Hawaiian Islands Republican women. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition of s 2,146 SD one HD one. The bottom line for us is that this measure violates privacy and discriminates against citizens based on their income. While I support traffic law compliance for public safety, I oppose government overreach into the citizen's income information.

Requiring law enforcement to access everyone's income for traffic enforcement creates unnecessary and improper administrative burdens for multiple state agencies, including police, tax authorities, and the courts.

Sharing someone's income information could seriously threaten citizens' privacy and increase cybersecurity expenses, as well as risks for agency management. If a security breach occurs, the state may face lawsuits and liability claims from citizens, which would raise the overall cost for running this program. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Please vote no on sp 2146.

Mahalo. Thank you very much. Next, Abby Sites, Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Abby Seitz, and I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed with comments on this measure. I'd like to highlight that we are in support of part one of this bill, which as you mentioned, essentially would establish a traffic fines task force. It was more or less the original text of this bill.

We're in support of this, as this, as this tax task force would explore whether, a traffic fines system based on one's income could be feasibly implemented here locally. We're in support of this, part of the bill because, evidence shows that our current regressive fine structure, both where the wealthy and lower income folks are penalized the same amount can be ineffective at deterring unsafe driving behavior, particularly of wealthier individuals and at the same time tickets for even minor offenses can lead to cascades of cycles of debt in court records, for lower income individuals.

We are, however, in opposition to part two of this bill, largely because we believe it is in conflict with the bill's original intent and by reintroducing license, stop stopers, for minor traffic violations, we'd be making a major step backwards, from the progress that we made, that here at our legislature, through Act 59. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

Thank you very much, miss Seitz. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please. Come on. Miss Fernandez.

So sorry. I thought we had submitted testimony. I'll make sure that gets in.

We we got it late, and I just didn't know that you were gonna testify.

Nope. Sorry about that. Mandy Fernandez on behalf of the ACLU. We submitted comments on this bill. We support the intent of the traffic fines task force, and we generally support the idea of a tiered, fines and fees system because that's been shown to be more effective and more equitable.

We have, just a task force composition proposed friendly amendment. We strongly oppose part two. And here's why. I personally and the rest of my office, we are the ones who requested the bill to be introduced that eventually was passed as act 59 in 2020. And the reason why we did that is because we went on a tour around the islands and talked to different public defenders offices and said, okay.

Well, what's causing like, what's the biggest stack of your caseload? Like, what's causing it? We're trying to look for upstream roots, root causes. And they said it was these license stoppers, and they act act as, like, slow motion license revocations. And it wasn't working.

It wasn't working for a few reasons. One, people can't afford to pay a ticket. If they can't afford to pay a ticket, it's not gonna change if you take away their ability to drive to their job, which pays them the money to afford to pay the ticket or drive to take their kids to school or to the doctor. It was just creating impossible choices for our communities, especially lower income communities.

Disproportionately native Hawaiian and disproportionately women are penalized by these system these systems, and it's actually not financially advantageous for the state.

A lot of jurisdictions, when they looked into similar debt based license certifications or suspensions, they're actually paying more for the administration of it in the debt collection than they were getting back in, the lost in the lost revenue by unpaid traffic debt. That's not even taking into consideration how much it costs to, prosecute somebody, arrest, prosecute, and and potentially incarcerate somebody because some of these offenses down the line, like driving without a valid license, driving without valid insurance, are jailable offenses.

And so that is a huge significant cost to the state, all for what could sometimes be just a parking ticket. Most of us in here probably have parking tickets and either have forgotten to pay or have paid late, and that's sent to a collections agency that pays an additional, like, 20% on top of that. There's a reason why people get under piles of debt.

And by re and by reimposing the system in Hawaii, we're just gonna be pushing people. We're walk we're going backwards. So we really strongly hope you amend this bill. I've, offered my those comments to the previous committee chair who made the amendment, and we'll be taken into consideration. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you very much, miss Fernandez. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If that question's members, question is due.

I think chair, Appleseed. Do do you have any, data on how states doing this and any results?

Part one are you speaking of?

Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Part one.

We we do not the, you know, the for for my knowledge, but we can definitely look into that in terms of other states. The traffic fines task force was actually based on international models that have been implementing this. And so just to reinforce the you know, this is not, implementing a system, but just a task force to explore the possibility of a more kind of progressive fines and fees structure here locally, which has been pursued kind of throughout globally with other countries.

Alright. Can I pass a follow-up?

Well, just if you do find any state that has done anything like this, let us know. If you let me know, I can inform the community.

Yeah. Yeah. We can definitely Thanks. Provide that. Thanks.

Please. Your second question, Rameshmiizu?

What was my second question? I just appreciate your thoughtfulness on that chair.

What was my second question? I just appreciate your thoughtfulness on that chair.

Other states.

How about I'll ask a question and maybe it'll come to you.

Okay. Go ahead.

So, the transportation chair is very frustrated at the thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in uncollected fines. And so that's why, he inserted this part too. And he did it not in this bill not only in this bill, but a number of bills. And that was just out of frustration because this is how how else do I do it? Well, is there do you have any suggestion?

I could ask the same of miss Fernandez. Is it they shouldn't have gotten the tickets in the first place? Or now that they got the tickets, is there another way that they might be able to to take care of that debt, but not have it be cash? I mean, is what what other ways we can look at this? Because if repealing this act 59 is not preferable, is there another alternative?

Yeah. That's that's a great question. And we've also been trying to do some some research into the amount of, you know, fines and fees, that have come since the implementation of act 59, because, you know, from our understanding is there was a large amount, prior to that, act 59 being established, and, we don't have great data on, you know, the the changes to the amount, that is being collected, since then.

I will I will point to, you know, our testimony showing that, data from some states does show that not having these stoppers and different debt related penalties does actually produce higher amounts of revenue being collected in addition to models such as essentially they call them like ability to pay models where, you know, essentially the courts will work with the individual and determine an amount that is appropriate for that individual based based on their income.

And so, I mean, in general, and I I think ACLU probably has more of the technical ex expertise on this, But I would say, you know, crafting legislation where where fines are made feasible for individuals to pay, in general, we see that usually the largest reason people are not paying is because they just do not have the means to.

So if we, you know, craft these fines in a way that are can be feasibly paid, that will most likely produce the greatest generation of collecting those signs.

Thank you. So that's in fact part one, is to look at that as a possible way to improve compliance. Yes. And chair Keila, the transportation chair in the house said that we have over $15,000,000 in uncollected fines since the bill was enacted in 2020. That's true.

I mean, that's a data point you'll have to follow-up with chair Keila to get the background on it, but it's something we need to address because I know the transportation chair is frustrated by that, and this was his attempt. But in fact, part one might be the the solution. So, I appreciate you offering that.

Thank you very much, miss Sykes. Miss Fernandez, did you have anything to add to that? Because ACLU has been working on this. You were the one to help Yeah. Initiate the legislation that repealed act 595 years ago.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Well, so I think we've seen a lot of evidence for income based fines and fees. Flat fines and fees are, equal in theory, but really inequitable in practice. And, then the solution really is meeting people where they're at and having these alternatives, and also a tiered, a sliding scale system where people can they pay what they are able to pay. A $16,000 wrapping up $16,000 in parking tickets so your construction workers can illegally park outside of your mansion while they're, you know, doing contracting work.

That's nothing to somebody who's very wealthy, but even a $50 ticket can and really be the difference between making rent or or or being able to afford groceries. There's a study done a number of years ago that showed as much where just one expected unexpected, traffic ticket could really put a family underwater. It's a it's these it's these solutions and, you know, task forces are great. But I think, ultimately, the task force is the intermediary step to the solution.

And so I think there is we have adequate evidence now. If Rapkila is concerned about that, I am more than happy to talk to him, and I've I've told him as much. I understand the concern. I would really like to see where that data is coming from, and I would also like to be able to compare it to how the trajectory of, unpaid traffic date, you know, preceding that in the decades and since the nineties.

These were originally passed in a wave of, like, trying to almost decriminalize after the, you know, that way the wave of thirties of tough on crime legislation early nineties. And this was this was actually an effort, a really well intended effort by the legislature, to to take a step away from that criminalization of poverty. But it had that unintended consequence, and we just don't we really don't wanna see that work undone.

Understood. Understood. And and I I do encourage you to have that conversation with Chiriquila because I want to acknowledge that that's a serious concern, and we've gotta figure out a path forward. Part one of the bill is part of your solution. Obviously, it's only a task force to study it, not implement it, but we do need to figure out how the Finnish system could be tailored to Hawaii and come up with legislation for that. So I would whatever the result of this bill, it would be certainly something well worth pursuing.

I would also just note, like, what is the purpose of imposing traffic fines? Is that our only means of accountability? What does accountability mean to us in our communities? I think there are much better ways of holding people accountable and that traffic fines or monetary penalties in general are one of the worst ones.

Well, I'd be open to suggestions that if if it's not gonna be, monetary fine, then what will it be?

Yes, sir.

It could be community service. It

would be interested to understand that better. Other questions? Yes. Rep Garcia.

Just following up on on on on the chair's question. If there's not monetary, then then what do you recommend as as accountability?

I think there's all sorts of things. I think education is really crucial. I think, people understanding, like, why laws are the way they are. I also think that, things like community service, there's there's such a great need for that. And community service that can be tailored.

And I'm sorry to the judiciary because, you know, every time I say these things, they're like, well, who's gonna do it? But I do and I do think I believe in, like, fully funding these efforts to be clear, but allowing for community service to be done in flexible ways too.

So you would like us to fund a program to do community service for people who break traffic laws?

I'm not saying that, and I don't know how much funding would be required. I was making a silly joke. I do support alternatives to monetary penalties, which are among the least effective for the reasons that I've said.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Other questions? Rep Shimizu.

Thank you, chair. Appleseed, please.

You know, in your testimony, you you state one study found that 42 percent of people lost their jobs when their license was suspended. And I'm wondering, is is there a source for that study or where does that study come from?

Yeah. It should be included in the the footnotes. And if it's not, I apologize. I can share that with the chair, but in general, you know, that is a big national study, so it's a conglomeration from data from from all all other states, and so, you know, I think, you know, we do highlight in in our testimony that our our society is very vehicle centric. Around two thirds of our commuters here in Hawaii do rely on on personal vehicles to access not only jobs, but a majority Sorry.

I just wanted to understand where that study came from. And it's not just Hawaii then.

Yes. That's correct. It's a national.

And I remembered my question. You can ask a follow-up. Sure.

Sure. You're welcome. Thank you.

So part one is my understanding is based on Finland.

Yes. That's that's correct.

If you were to compare Finland with Hawaii as far as their government structure and their economic factors, is it is it so similar that Finland can be used as a possible, reference model? I'm I'm just curious.

I mean, there's definitely, that that is a very good good question, and there are quite a few differences between, you know, our not only our our government, but our also our kind of income stratification here. I would say, generally, there's probably less less, inequalities in terms of the or differences between those who are making the least in their society and those who are making, the most economically.

So there are some very large government and just societal differences, but I think, you know, I I can't speak to the the author of this bill's intent. I I know that Finland is not the only international model, but that is, you know, my understanding for this bill is to explore if something from, you know, a a place where the government and societal differences Where those are the differences can also be applied here locally.

Follow-up question, sir. I'm just I'm just wondering if we're going to reap any benefit if we're investigating something that is not plausible because of irreconcilable differences that it just not gonna make sense in Hawaii. So I I would rather, you know, I would want to know that where wherever we're studying as far as a model can translate to Hawaii. I mean, that's the way I think it would make more sense to me, but, you know Okay. That's just my thought.

Yeah. And and it might be good for you to follow-up with the introducer of the bill to learn more about that. My understanding of the bill is that we'd be looking at the the model of how they do their traffic fines, not doing a cross cultural comparison of the demographics and the cultural differences between the two societies. But that's my understanding.

Okay. Thank you, Joe.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you to all the testifiers. Next measure, SB2948 relating to insurance fraud.

Thank you.

This measure prohibits certain solicitation and inducement practices relating to insurance claims, broadens the scope of the offense of insurance fraud and the acts that constitute insurance fraud, and establishes disaster related insurance fraud offenses, clarifies the penalties for the offense of insurance fraud and the capabilities and operations of the insurance fraud investigations branch, including an annual report to the legislature and use of fraud analytics.

It reiterates protections for insurance fraud, whistleblowers. First up, we have the insurance division, Department of Commerce and consumer affairs.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Shelby Atkinson on behalf of the insurance commissioner in DCCA.

We are gonna stand on our written testimony in which we provided comments, and I'm not gonna add much more substantially to it. However, I just do want to point out regarding the use of fraud analytics as a tool in combating, insurance fraud, in relation to what we mentioned in our testimony. So the fraud branch does use a database. They actually use the National Insurance Crime Bureau's database to help with its functions of detecting fraud and investigating fraud.

And the NICB does use fraud analytics, which in the Bill is described as AI, data analytics, and statistical modeling to help generate information that can be used by its members.

So the branch does use that database. However, our concern in our testimony was that it appears that the Bill could be interpreted to impose to give the authority to the branch to actually implement its own system. And we were concerned that you know, we cannot set up a system like that. We just don't have the resources or the computing power to generate something like a database using fraud analytics that the NICB has. And we are already using their database.

So that was I just want to clarify that that's where our concern came from in our testimony. But we do, you know, we do support the tech behind this Bill. We appreciate the measures being put in place.

And if you could highlight that you did mention an amendment?

Yes. That is correct. There was a section that imposed a liability on a business entity for the insurance card committed by its employees, contractors, agents. And so we just wanted to clarify that we didn't want this to be Misconstrued in any way as absolving the individual of any liability had they committed the insurance fraud. And you know, we just didn't want a situation where it would be only the business that would be liable for insurance fraud committed by individual.

Okay. Thanks very much.

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity.

Sure. Next on Zoom, National Insurance Crime Bureau, Marian Smith.

Hi. Aloha. I'm Marian Smith. I am the director of strategy, policy, and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau. Really support the anti insurance fraud efforts in this Bill and want to echo the department's comments regarding we really appreciate our partnership with all of the states and their fraud units.

And we have a very robust database, a very robust data analytics group. I'm I'm currently in San Diego with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. We testified today regarding fraud and again, the information that we can provide states at no cost, which is beautiful for you when it comes to budget saving members.

And so simply want to support this Bill, support the Department of Insurance and their fraud unit, and I stand, with the letter that we submitted supporting this Bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, ARC, on Zoom.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and, members of the committee. My name is Eric Schuler. I'm the president for the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. We're a trade association that represents companies that offer consumer legal funding. Just wanted to say right off the bat, we fully support, legislation that cracks down on insurance fraud.

But, unfortunately there is a I think, a misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding 1 provision of the Bill regarding litigation financing. And typically, litigation financing is where an outside organization finances the actual litigation and pays for attorney's fees, court costs, things like that to promote the litigation. Unfortunately, as drafted, the Bill also sweeps in consumer legal funding. And consumer legal funding is where we provide financial assistance to consumers who do have a pending legal claim. But 100% of those funds are used for household needs.

Keeping a roof over their head and food on the table.

And in fact, I've reached out to some of my members to see what has been done in Hawaii lately, and it's done anything from car accidents to 1 extreme case was brought to my attention today where someone who was involved in a wrongful death situation and that family did not have sufficient insurance and was because of consumer legal funding that that family is able to keep their life together while their claim for the wrongful death goes to the process.

All we're asking for in our written testimony is a simple provision to add on to it. The funds are not they're used for personal household needs are exempt from litigation financing. We're not taking away anything from the spirit of the bill or any of the enforcements with it.

As I said, we are fully supportive of preventing insurance fraud. We just wanna make sure that your residents of Hawaii and your constituents that needs a little bit of financial assistance while their case is making its way through the legal system have those resources available to them. And I happy to welcome any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much, Mister Schuler. Next, Kekoa McClellan, Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Mister Schuler covered most of the organization's points and I have learned of helping them think this through today. We did offer some very strategic comments to the Bill, specifically in section 2 under the definition of litigation financing arrangement. The offered amendments would add quote, the term does not include funds intended for use by a party for personal or familial expenses.

And that captures the gist of what Mister Schulers shared with his Chair, that this would enable and allow for local families that currently use these tools which, by the way are non recourse mechanisms. In other words, if for some reason they are given funding to support their working needs as a family and the payment does not come through from the surety or from the settlement, there's non recourse to the recipient of those loans.

That's just how these work categorically. It would allow for these kinds of products to continue to be utilized by local families. Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much, Mister McClellan. Thank you, chair. Next, Evan Oy, Hawaii Association for Justice. Welcome, Mister Oy. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Evan Oy, on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. You do have a written testimony, and we do respectfully oppose this measure in its current form. And I think our primary point of concern is again, with the definition of litigation financing arrangement.

The broad breadth of it could sweep in you know, legitimate contingency fee agreements which are 1 regulated by the Hawaii rules of professional conduct, and 2 are a tool for you know, individuals most of the times, victims to pursue or litigate their claims through no upfront cost of their own.

So it's really a consumer friendly structure in that sense. So, you know we did provide some amendment language which would expressly exempt that, and that's pretty consistent with what other jurisdictions do for their litigation financing legislation across their jurisdiction. So, you know happy to answer any questions.

I think we did provide some other clarifying amendments if you're in compliance with the Hawaii rules of professional conduct, as well as maybe cleaning up or removing some vague terms which could really go after some legitimate legal advocacy efforts. So available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Oy. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2948? If not, questions members?

Question.

Representative Shimizu?

Thank you, sir. I'll DCCA, please. You know, I'm looking at your testimony and on page 203, it says that department has concerns regarding the revision of Hawaii revised statuettes going on about extensive work that this would require and also the coordination, cooperation of other people. And when I read this, it sounds like this Bill and what it's trying to accomplish is not he's not that testimony.

So I had tried to explain earlier. So when we saw the section and that section is

431.

page 11 of the CD But it says, the branch may deploy fraud analytics and case flagging systems to identify anomalies, indicators, patterns, and trends of insurance fraud to prioritize investigations.

And when we saw that we thought this could be, interpreted in a way that places an expectation on the branch to actually create a system just like the 1 that NICB has, which is a massive system that includes, you know, claims and information from insurers and other players in the industry, and to be able to share that information with you know, regulators and law enforcement.

So, you know maybe it's that word deploy where we're taking that to mean it's like implementing a system as opposed to just to using the technology of fraud analytics, which you know, is something that the NICB database is using to provide us with advanced tools. So that was it was just more of a concern that we thought you know, this was giving us the authority to create a database that huge.

And as the branch is structured currently, we just don't have the resources for that.

So would there be some language that needs to be adjusted so that interpretation is not Possibly with the term deploy.

We think you know, I think since we are currently using the tech the tools that employ this technology, perhaps even without this this the assertion of this language, I you know, may perhaps this doesn't need to be here. However, if it is perhaps it's that term deploy. It could be interpreted to mean use or implement.

So I think, you know maybe if we were if the branch may use you know, fraud analytics, that might clear up some of the confusion.

We're just trying to make sure that we're not expected to actually create our own system, which would require cooperation from insurers to give us, you know, unfettered access to their data and share that.

Okay.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Thank you.

Sure. For Prep cocker.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for being here. You had an amendment though in, page 1 no. Sorry.

Section D line 1, page 19. Oh, you did the additionally 2 people

That in her testimony.

Okay. And, alright. And then what Shamiza brought up, those are the couple things that you would like to see. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2041, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related to real property. This measure establishes a working group to recommend the implementation of specific reforms to effectively eliminate the land court and requires a report to the legislature and it appropriates funds. On this measure, first up, we have the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Excuse me. Manu Tupper from the Office of the Chairperson at the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We'll stand on our written comments. Just wanna say that although we just submitted comments, we do support the formation of a working group that includes the chairperson of the department or their designee.

We think that such a working group would inform the process of possibly transitioning. Happy to answer any questions. And then I have in the room as well our registrar from the Bureau of Conveyances.

Thank you very much. Next we have the Judiciary.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to testify on this measure. My name is Aphirak Bamrungruan from the First Circuit. We stand on our written testimony offering comment.

In summary, it would be more prudent to allow the working group as contemplated in section four to complete their work and submit their writing and recommendation before setting a definitive date for reviewing the land court system.

And as of in section two as well as the section three, we said the definitive date that no new applications shall be registered within the land court system. And I'm available for any question the committee may have. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And I think you also mentioned in your testimony, you recommend that the chair of the working group be provided the authority to add individuals to the working group as the chair deems appropriate?

That's correct, Chair.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Hawaii Realtors, Ms. Garcia, testimony in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Thank you to the registrar for being here.

We're gonna move on to the final measure on our hearing notice today. Senate Bill 3040, Senate Draft 1, related to gun violence prevention. This measure replaces the Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission with the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and it appropriates funds. First up, we have Department of Law Enforcement in support. Not present. Next, we have Giffords Gun Owners for Safety in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Susan Trombley. I live in Kapolei. I am a gun owner. I am the mother of a school shooting survivor. I am a retired teacher who had a student in my eighth grade classroom with a gun. I am a domestic violence survivor.

I support legislation to create an Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Protecting victims of gun violence is necessary for the safety of all of us. According to Gifford's Gun Owners for Safety research, in the United States, more than 125 people die every day from gun violence.

25 million US adults have been threatened or non fatally injured by an intimate partner with a firearm. Gun violence is the leading cause of death among all children in the United States. Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed by an abusive intimate partner. I urge you to continue to keep our community safe. Support SB 3040. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Trombley. Next, Hawaii Chapter, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. I live here and I volunteer with the Hawaii Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, as do the other people here supporting me in their red shirts today. My name is Terriann Mohideen. I'm sorry.

I urge you to support this bill. When I turn on the local news, it sounds like we have a gun violence problem. There's a shooting in a parking lot over there. There's a drive by over here. There was a domestic violence incident involving a firearm, and now the victim is dead.

There was an armed robbery nearby. There was a road rage incident involving a gun. But what is the story behind these sound bites? For a couple years now, we have had a group that was trying to work on this specifically. A Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission, but it didn't come with the funding necessary to conduct research.

It met a couple times, and at its last meeting, it voted to end itself and merge into another group. One important thing we did learn from a 2022 meeting of this commission was that in that meeting, police told them that better data could help them better respond to crimes. How often is a person using a gun to commit a crime not the registered owner?

Are there trends in how firearms are moving across our state? How many crimes were committed with licensed versus unlicensed firearms? How often are 3D printed guns or ghost guns being used in crimes? Do we have a rise in youth firearms crime? What can be done to prevent gun violence here?

Can we increase community engagement about it? Can we involve public health voices? Data is not a flashy or exciting thing, but we need an Office of Gun Violence Prevention that can get the required data to our law enforcement in order to keep us all safer. One that is funded and set up to succeed. Mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Jay Franzone, Everytown for Gun Safety.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. In support. My name is Jay Franzone. I live here on Oahu, and I'm an Associate Director of Government Relations at Everytown for Gun Safety. Everytown is the nation's largest gun violence prevention organization, with 11 million supporters who are moms, students, mayors, educators, faith leaders, and more. And importantly and notably, we have a chapter here in Hawaii.

We're in support of SB 3040 that replaces the replaces the violent crime, the Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission with an Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This new office, as has been said, will be a hub of data gathering, analysis, to inform policies, programs to the governor and the legislature to continue preventing gun violence with the strong laws we have here.

We're no stranger to passing good laws. This would help us join the ranks of over a dozen states, including Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, and Illinois. This would help us save lives. For those reasons, Everytown is in support of SB 3040. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And finally, Mr. Dennis Dunn on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. I'm Dennis Dunn. I'm testifying in strong support of Senate Bill 3040, Senate Draft 1. The purpose of this measure is to replace the gun violence and prevention, Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission with the gun violence prevention, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. And it's to establish an appropriation for that purpose, just very important.

The proposed office would be placed within the Department of the Attorney General. Recent incidents of gun violence in Hawaii have shaken our long held sense of security as a state that has largely avoided the extremes of gun violence seen in the continental United States. As we confront this growing problem, Hawaii must develop effective, proactive strategies to prevent gun violence before it occurs.

Such strategies require cross disciplinary data collection, analysis, and informed policy development. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention is envisioned as a central source for this work, providing the governor, state departments, and the legislature with the guidance necessary to exercise leadership and enact meaningful legislation and policies to reduce and ultimately eliminate gun violence in our state.

The purpose of the proposed office is the elimination of gun violence, not the elimination of guns. Through comprehensive data gathering and analysis, the office can help shape evidence based prevention efforts that address the root causes of gun violence and promote public safety. Gun violence is a plague in our communities, as devastating as any disease pandemic.

Preventive measures to stop gun violence are just as critical to public health and safety as vaccines are to combating contagious diseases. Throughout my 50 year career in victim assistance, I have witnessed firsthand the trauma and suffering endured by families and communities torn apart by gun violence across Hawaii.

The pain inflicted by these incidents is profound and long lasting and demands a thoughtful, coordinated, and proactive response. This bill, Senate Bill 3040, provides an important new tool to help Hawaii address and prevent gun violence through informed leadership, data driven policy, and coordinated prevention efforts. I respectfully urge the committee to vote in support of this measure. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Dunn. That's all the testimony that we have been told is to be presented today. We received a total of 52 testimonies in support, 2 in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Senate Bill 3040. If not, questions, Members? Rep Shimizu.

For Mr. Dunn, are you still on?

Mr. Dunn. Yep.

Hello, Mr. Dunn. I was just curious. Do you have any experience or comment on the gun, the existing Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission as far as what they were doing?

I wasn't involved with that, but my understanding is that they voted to dissolve themselves and merge into another body and so that they no longer exist. That's my understanding.

Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's move up to the top of the agenda for decision making. Thank you to all the Members for being here for decision making. First up, Senate Bill 83.

On this measure, I recommend that, while I heard the testimony from the Hawaii Hotel Alliance and the other hotels, I think their issues mostly should be handled in the next committee, consumer protection and commerce, because a lot of them are consumer protection, matters. Where I would like to recommend we adopt the amendments recommended by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defect the effective date to 07/01/3000. Questions or concerns, members?

Question.

Just the DCCA, it's adding back, remedies.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Can comment if there's time for comment later?

I really think this measure needs to move forward. I found, the testimony of some of the, you know, lobbyists from the multibillion dollar hotel industry a little bit offensive when you read the, the text of the measure, service disruption is not referencing the change of stake or the omission of a food item service or on a menu. What it is talking about is disruption due to work stoppages and very serious issues of health and human safety, like lice and bed bugs.

And so that was really disingenuous, and I think this is a measure that needs to move forward. I personally have been in other hotels, on the continent where I have been offended when there has been labor stoppages, and I was not informed of it, and I did not have the opportunity to change.

There is a right to know. I appreciate the chair's, reinsertion of, remedies because this is an issue that needs to be taken up. And if Hawaii can lead, I know that there are other jurisdictions looking at these kinds of measures, but if Hawaii can lead, we should lead because we support working families. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, rep Belatti. Any other questions or concerns?

Sure.

Who is that rep? Oh Cochran.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to, you know, take in all sides here and having worked directly in the hotel industry for thirty two of my years on Earth. Mara, in particular, we transitioned from a hotel to a timeshare that took three and a half years, notified people I mean, neighbors surrounding everybody, and it is the kuleana of the hospitality and the hotelier to notify, and we've done that.

And, yes, of course, there's things that happen and, you know, no fault of people, and we rectify that one on one with that guest, and we because we do not wanna have them walk away upset. One bad comment adds up to 10, you know, people knowing and so forth, it grows. So, moving this forward, I I see the attempt, but it's gonna be a WR for me at this time, but I said I hear you wanting to move it forward for further discussion. So Thank you. Appreciate that. Sure.

Thank you very much. Any other comments or concerns? If not, recommendation to pass with amendments, taking the DCCA amendments and defecting the effective date to 07/01/3000 and making technical amendments. No further comments, vice chair for the vote.

Putting on SB 83 SD 2 HD 1 with amendments, chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Pilate? Aye. Representative Cochran is with reservations. Representative Hashem?

Aye.

Representative Kahaloa? Aye. Representative Sayama is excused. Representative Takayama?

Representative Garcia?

Aye.

No vote.

No. Representative Shimizu?

No. No. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. And I would encourage the hotel industry to to follow-up with CPC chair because a number of your concerns, I think, are best addressed in the consumer protection of commerce committee. Okay. Thanks. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 2798, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related to law enforcement. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? With that, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2798, SD 1, HD 1 as is. Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2593, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to the Law Enforcement Standards Board. Our recommendation is to move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2593, SD 1, HD 1 as is. Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Reservations for Representatives Garcia, Cochran, Belatti. Anyone else? Okay. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2567, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to petitions to temporarily restrain and enjoin harassment of an employee. I'd like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style and move this along. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2567, SD 2, HD 1.

With amendments. Yes. Technical amendments.

Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 3140 House Draft 1 relating to the State Fire Council. I'd like to move this along as is. Questions or concerns members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3140 HD 1 as is representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2057 Senate draft 2, House draft one relating to law enforcement. On this one, I would like to recommend moving forward with amendments. On page 1 line 14 to 15, I wanna make sure that we match this list used in the definition of facilitate. So I wanna add the following words, vehicles, databases, surveillance technology, communication systems.

That way we're consistent throughout this bill. Next, I would like to clarify the definitions of assist and facilitate to ensure that they apply consistently to all prohibited conduct described in subsection b. And then I would like on page 3 lines 12 to 13, it would be more accurate for purposes of First Amendment analysis to change "violate any law end" to "fall outside the protections of the First Amendment". I think that would be more accurate.

And then I would like on page 2, lines 17 to 19, add the following language, the provision of information or assistance expressly required by federal or state law, including any mandatory information sharing duty or in accordance with title eight United States code sections 1373 and 1644.

I think that way we're very clear about how we're crafting this measure relating to state and federal enforcement, law enforcement officers. Questions or concerns, members?

Comment, chair.

Yes, rep Garcia.

Thank you, chair. As I said before on previous measures, I just feel that this bill is is antagonistic towards the federal administration, and I believe that in areas of law enforcement, there should be more cooperation, not less. So for those reasons, it's a no vote.

Understood. And and I do wanna emphasize again that immigration law is solely the purview of the Federal Government.

Definitely.

And that nothing in this measure or anything else that we moved out of this committee would limit any cooperative agreements on any other matter, any other area of law. So just to reiterate that for everybody. But thank you for your comments, rep Garcia. Other comments?

Thank you, chair.

Rep Shimizu

Similarly, I do have concerns. I mean, you know, there's always two ways of looking at things. And I'm concerned we didn't have any testimony from the AG's office or Department of Law Enforcement. And we did have testimony from which is the local law enforcement, and they were testifying against it. So I am gonna be voting no myself.

Okay.

Thank you. Other comments or concerns?

I have same similar concerns here, so we'll be voting now.

With your colleagues there.

Okay? Yes.

Alright. Good and right in. Okay. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2057 SD 2 HD 1 with amendments. No votes for representatives Garcia, Shimizu, and Cochran. Any additional no votes? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 2146, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, related to traffic infractions. I'd like to move this out with amendments, some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. On page 4, lines 8 to 10, the reference to members of the task force not being subject to Chapter 84 Hawaii Revised Statutes is not necessary.

As the Ethics Commission has already stated that Chapter 84 does not apply in these circumstances. And you can see the testimony on HB 1749 from a couple, several years ago. But I thought no one would remember that, so I brought it back up so everyone knows.

Then technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And then I would like to delete part two because I don't think it's a good idea to repeal Act 59. I do think we need to look at other ways of establishing a fair and effective system for traffic fines. Our current system is not fair and effective.

So if we can learn something from the Finns, I'm all for it. But we've gotta look at that and see how it can be tailored to work in Hawaii because Finland is different from Hawaii, but we might learn something from them. Questions or concerns, Members? Rep Shimizu.

Always respectful of your purview, but I'm gonna be voting no. I was actually in favor of part two.

Other comments or concerns? Yes. Rep Garcia.

Thank you, Chair. I'm gonna be voting no as well. I just think that, you know, there should be equity in this, and I know there's different perspectives here. One views that this would be equitable. I think the opposite. I think, matter if you're rich, middle class, poor, you break the law, you break the law.

And there should be common, a consequence that's even across the board. And to me, that is equitable. And this bill, I think, would move us in the direction of, like, Finland what was mentioned. I don't think Finland is an example that we should be following here in Hawaii. So no vote. Thank you.

Understood. Understood. Any other comments or concerns? Let's not bash Finland. It's a nice place. Go ahead, Rep Cochran.

I am glad to hear that you're striking out part two. There is quite a bit of testimony to address that. So with that, I will be supporting it. And according to my DNA, I'm part Finnish, so hey, I think they're really smart people.

There you go, there you go. We always have something to learn from those who, even though they may be different from us, we have something to learn. Any other comments or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Before I vote...

Oh, yes, your comment.

Measure SB 2057 SD 2 HD 1, just noting Sayama as excused.

Excused. Okay. Thank you. You're very thorough. I appreciate that.

Voting on SB 2146 SD 1 HD 1 with amendments. Sayama is excused. I have no for Garcia and Shimizu. Any additional no votes? Any reservations or recommendations?

Thank you. Senate bill 2948 Senate draft 2, House draft 1. On this measure, I'd like to move it forward with some amendments. I'd like to adopt the insurance division's amendments, which is on page 19 line 1 section d. Add the word additionally to section d, so it reads a business entity shall be additionally liable for insurance fraud, etcetera.

And then we also on page seven lines 18 to 21, it's largely duplicative of the language on lines 3 to 5. So I wanna consolidate those provisions to avoid duplicative prohibitions and ensure consistent application. On page eight, lines 13 to 14, subsection A3, which prohibits the use of high pressure tactics to obtain insurance assignments or contracts. It really describes coercive conduct and so I wanna actually add the word coercive to page 8 line 7.

So that's made very clear to include coercive conduct in the lead-in language to that section.

And then page eight lines 3 to 16, I wanna clarify that the prohibited advertising and solicitation restrictions during emergencies described in this section are intended to be subject to the insurance fraud penalties. And we would include technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would also like to incorporate the amendments from the Hawaii Association of Justice and from the Alliance for Responsible and Consumer Legal Funding. Okay. Those are my recommendations.

Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2948 SD 2 HD 1 with amendments. Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations.

Reservations for reps Garcia and Shimizu. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 2041, Senate draft 1, House draft 1 relating to real property. On this measure, I would like to move this out with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I'd like to adopt the judiciary's amendments, and then I want to just make it clear in adopting the judiciary's amendments that we would be deleting sections 2 and 3 and making them part of the purview of the working group.

And then I wanna add language that would request the Legislative Reference Bureau to assist with drafting the proposed legislation.

And then I also want to specify that the judiciary shall provide any necessary administrative support to the working group including preparing and drafting the report. Those are my recommendations, questions, or concerns members? If not, place chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2041 SD 1 HD 1 with amendments. Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Question?

Reservation.

Reservations for representative Cochran. Recommendation is no.

Thank you. And then the last measure is Senate Bill 3040 Senate Draft 1. I'd like to move this out with a a defective date defective effective date of July 1st, 3000. And move it on to finance. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3040 SD 1 with amendments. Representative Sayama is excused. Are there any voting no? No for Representative Garcia.

Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. No further business before us. We are adjourned.