Senate Standing Committee on Hawaiian Affairs

Good afternoon. We are convening the Joint Committees on Public Safety and Military Affairs and Committee on Hawaiian Affairs for a hearing on one pair of resolutions. Senate concurrent Resolution 89 and Senate resolution six requesting the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission to establish an advisory committee to develop recommendations on the implementation of alternative models for rehabilitation and restorative justice on Oahu. And I believe to go ahead and get us started. We have a number of individuals here in person this afternoon.

So, we wanna go ahead and get started as soon as possible. First up, we have, Director Johnson testifying for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Fukunaga, Chair Richards, and Members of both Committees. I'll just summarize my testimony. I'd like to point out, two small errors on I apologize. On the first page, first paragraph, third line, where it says established an advisory committee. Please strike the D.

And then I didn't notice this, and I apologize. Second paragraph on the second page with a sentence that start. This is preview this was previously provided. As you can see, it went to the next line. I should have caught that.

My apologies. So, so real quick. We provide comments. We support the intent of this measure and provide comments. We did attach a copy of our two page summary of design principles and planning that we took from the break in cycles report that are being included in the plans and design for the new o triple c, and we previously provided that to the oversight commission as well.

I did wanna point out, though, that any delay in the project will be very costly. I'll give you an example. In 2017, the estimated cost was $537,000,000 to complete the o triple c. However, we did not obtain the funding for that at present. The estimate is now for the same facility, is now over $900,000,000, and every month that we delay could cost between 2 and $6,000,000 more in construction escalation costs.

I just wanted to point that out, and I'll be available with any questions you might have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have, on behalf of Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, Kristin Johnson, testifying in person. Oh, okay. This is not Kristin Johnson?

No. Martha Torney, and I'm one of the commissions on the Oversight Commission. We have test testifying in support of this resolution, and the resolution is directly aligned with the Commission's statutory responsibility for reentry as found in Section 353 I-3. So it does align with our thing.

The breaking cycle report provides a comprehensive community informed framework for transforming Hawaii's correctional system into one that is holistic, health centered, and trauma informed. The commission consistently emphasized that the correctional reform in Hawaii must take place at a system wide level. It cannot just be up to corrections alone. And so that's what the the, report proposes.

And we also, the new jail construction with should not go forward without a comprehensive rehabilitative framework risk of perpetuating the various cycles of incarceration to seek the state seeks to address.

The commission urged the planning efforts to be grounded in clear system wide strategy sent centered on rehabilitation, diversion, and reentry. So by establishing this advisory committee, the legislature is enabling the the collaborative cross section approach required to move the concept into implementation. I will say what the, director attached to his, report, the design principles, those have been the design principles since November 2024. We would like to see them fleshed out. How will you accomplish that?

And that's what's, not included. So we do support this, and we thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next, we have Office of the Public Defender, Haley Chang, OPD representative.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs. My name is Haley Chang. I'm the First Deputy of the State of Hawaii Office of the Public Defender. We are incredibly supportive of this measure. I can tell you that my attorneys statewide, are in the facilities every day.

We spend a lot of time at OCCC and all of the other correctional facilities statewide. These committees are very familiar with the issues that plague our correctional system, including recidivism, substance abuse, mental health, education, resources. The list goes on and on. This is a critical time, and we appreciate these committees hearing this. We are getting ready to bill as you've build, as you've heard, close to a $1,000,000,000 facility.

What we do with that could be transformative for the system. Right now, I can tell you, in all of the years, approaching twenty years that I've been regularly visiting o triple c to visit clients, there is no rehabilitative aspect to that facility whatsoever. There are no treatment programs. There is no opportunities for her for meaningful rehabilitation. We are cycling people in and out.

The oversight commission is best suited to head up this committee. We believe that the work they're doing is critical and their input is necessary. So we stand in strong support at this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard, and I will be available for questions.

Thank you. We also have, let's see, testimony and written testimony from office of Hawaiian affairs and Alii Pauahi Hawaiian Civic Club in support. Next, we have Community Alliance on Prisons, Kat Brady.

Good afternoon, Chair Fukunaga, Chair Richards, and Vice Chair Lamasao. My first time testifying in front of the OIN committee right We're in support of this measure. We we have a suggestion to expand the advisory group by four. A man and a woman who are both, have lived experience, which I think would be really informative to the entire group.

And the other two are two, ACOs, correctional officers who work at O Triple C. I've met many of them, and they were very active in the, Oversight Commission staff survey, which I included, in my footnotes. But the one thing that they've been asking for is training. So we can build a fancy, shiny building. And if you put people in who, you know, want training and aren't getting it, we're gonna have the same problems.

So we really honor the staff. We honor the people inside, and we think that their insight will be really informative to the advisory group. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Chris Caulfield for Alliance in person.

Hello. I'm Chris Caulfield. I'm speaking to you today as the president of Alliance. Good afternoon. I wanna start by just thanking you and acknowledging how much effort you've, your committee has put into looking at our legal system from the perspective of the biases that are built into it and trying to build a more restorative justice, restorative, rehabilitative model of, how we do things here in Hawaii.

I really appreciate that. It's certainly something that the survivors that we work with are impacted by, as you all know, mass incarceration is often referred to as the new Jim Crow. We have the opportunity to disrupt that here in Hawaii. It's especially true for native Hawaiian populations, which is really the prison through which through which we're looking at this resolution native Hawaiians makeup around 20% of our population.

But around 40% of our incarcerated population about double that, and the bias that they experience exist at every stage of the legal system from arrest to sentencing incarceration to parole revocation.

There's a lot of research that's shown that Hawaiians are more likely to be sentenced to longer given longer sentences, receive face longer probation terms, even when controlling for other factors. And the overrepresentation of native Hawaiians is connected to historical and structural reasons. It's been it impacts poverty, housing instability, economic stability across generations, and it's been consistently shown to be something that is a systemic inequity that's rooted in dispossession going back generations in our islands and our state. So this is really a structural matter.

It has intergenerational impacts.

When parents are incarcerated, there's families experience economic instability and children especially experience a great deal of trauma. And that's where we come into this because a lot of those children who are experiencing trauma carry that forward, and we work with survivors of gender violence and sexual exploitation. And intergenerational trauma is certainly something that is carried forward as a precursor, as an indicator, or something of of something that is worsens vulnerability to exploitation. So, we think this is a very well intentioned resolution.

Thank you so much for putting it forward.

We hope you will move it forward from your committee. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We also received written testimony on behalf of Ohana O'opokele comments and written testimony and support from Ekolumi Anui. Next, we have Robert Mercy in person.

Thank you, Chair Fukunaga and Members of the Public Safety Committee, and my apologies to the members of the and the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Hawaiian fitness committee because I failed to put you on the list because in my haste, I I overlooked that, and I'm so sorry. This is an important resolution, I think, for two major reasons.

Number one, the new jail is probably the and has been billed as the most costly public works project ever undertaken by the state of Hawaii at a billion dollars of of cost estimated now, and it'll probably run more than that.

But, secondly, if you don't get the jail right, the jail sits at the middle of the, correctional system and the criminal justice system, and once you get the jail in the if you have the wrong philosophy, the wrong design, so you can't really have a rehabilitative system, you can change everything else, but you're never going to get what you want and and and and make a better and safer community if the jail is all wrong.

So the jail is kind of the fulcrum between the criminal justice and the correctional system, and so getting it right is extremely important, and we're unfortunately not on the track to do that.

However, we do have this wonderful report from the from the UHCDC. It's I when I heard that they were working on it, actually, I never thought they could come up with something like this. We have the chair also of the Correctional Reform Working Group, we spent a year looking carefully at all of the programs that we could find, the books. We worked with a on a really good architect for, a full week.

We brought him down here, and we we sequestered ourselves with him, and and, we came up with some ideas, but this is a really top just the best report I've ever seen, better than anything we could have, dreamed of, and to let it go to waste, to have it ignored would be a real tragedy, and I'm so glad you introduced this resolution to give the people a chance for the first time in ten years that this well, over ten years that we've been talking about a new jail.

This would be the first time we've really had a voice and a chance to to to try and get it right. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Let's see. That brings us to the end of our list of testifiers. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on SCR 89 or SCR SR 84? If not, members, are there any questions?

The Chair would like to ask director Johnson as well as, I guess, miss Tierney or Kristen Johnson from the Oversight Commission to respond to, you know, some of the questions Chair has. I'm glad that, you know, everyone is, here at the table together because in a way, you know, I don't believe we've had an opportunity to have a presentation with, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Oversight Commission on the overall plans for the new facility.

And so, we really, you know, appreciated, Director Johnson's offer to do a presentation for the committees and would like to extend that offer in the very near future. You know, this is kind of a major undertaking for the state of Hawaii. And the fact that, you know, the department commissioned the study by the design center is kind of a a really, visionary first step.

So I would kind of ask the two of you to kind of comment on, you know, how we might frame and structure such a briefing because I think it it kind of brings in a whole new dimension to how we approach, rehabilitative correctional design and restorative justice from the standpoint of a lot of the Hawaiian values that are expressed in that study.

Okay. I think you should start by we should invite, Kathy and her staff who did the report to come and provide a summary, and then for our consultants in DAGs to come and provide a presentation on where we are with planning and design. And then that would address Martha's question about flushing out some of the the, planning and design, recommendation we took from the report that we are implementing into the o triple c.

I think that would answer a lot of the questions of the oversight commission, the public, and maybe the the legislators as well.

Okay. That would be a good starting point. Mister

I agree with that. And, also, I just wanna remind you, we have in our mandate, we are also responsible for the reentry process and the department. So we need to work very closely on that. At times, it has not always been a good relationship on that, but we'll keep on trying to improve it. Okay.

Can you provide

a brief update, I guess, at this point as to the status of the funding cycles and where DCR stands with respect to all of the appropriations you've received so far and how you have incorporated, you know, the breaking cycle.

We received slightly over $30,000,000 so far for planning and design for the facility. We have done all of the EIS studies required. We've gotten approval from the Board of Water Supply for the water, and the sewer capacity, at the planned site. The animal quarantine, facility would have to move because part of it would be o triple c would sit on top of it. So it would have to relocate to another location, maybe smaller, maybe more efficient.

With respect to the the funding has gone for the EIS, the planning design, the land, and some of the architecture work that's being done now. And, again, it's all conceptual, but I think when you when we provide the presentation, you'll see. Next year, our plan is to come to the legislature and ask for two things.

One, ask for the money depending on what type of financing is determined by DAGS and Budget and Finance to come in to ask for 25% of the money, maybe, and then a developer would come in and then use their funding to build the facility that we designed. And then the state would it'd be like a lease buyback.

But I'm not sure what that process is gonna be because we have a new director of budget and finance, Seth Colby. Louis Salaverio, who was a previous director, was intimately involved, and he had briefed the legislators over the last two years once or twice, including on the neighbor islands and here.

And then we would also come in for a concurrent resolution from the legislature to show the legislature support for the project so that when we do go out to do the RFI and the RFQ, that we would that the developers out there would know that the state supported the project because it is a large project. So that's where we stay.

K. Currently, the, I guess, the status of the RFQ or RFI is to have a private developer design build, etcetera. Right? Well,

we would provide the design up to 30 to 40% of the design, and they would then determine what they could do for the amount of money and then work with us in DAGS on that issue. And our our particular concern here, to be honest with you, is the climate. And so that the materials we use have to be able to withstand the heat, the moisture, the salt air.

So we would look be looking for construction products that can resist mold and resist the dampness and resist the salt air. Yeah.

Okay. Given many of the challenges that the state is now facing Which have gotten much greater over the last few months I think we would invite, you know, the department and all of the appropriate parties to conduct this briefing for the legislature sooner rather than later. And we'll, you know, kind of work with you and your staff to identify a date within the next two weeks or so.

Because, I think timing wise, you know, the magnitude of this project in conjunction with many of the challenges we're facing really, you know, necessitates, a closer look and supporting, you know, the restorative justice model, which hopefully might shrink a little bit of your footprint and maybe help with some of the costs.

Well, the the footprint we plan to shrink by going up to three stories. And I wanna also make it emphasize that the biggest cost in your any kind of facility is your staffing cost. And so right now, the the ACO complement is 412. We would have an ACO complement in a new facility of just less than 300. I wanna emphasize no one would lose their job.

We would take those ACOs who are left over, if you will, once in they pick post by seniority and fill our vacancies on the other Wahoo facilities, thus cutting down our overtime costs at those facilities as well. Thank you.

I would like to stress that the the commission has supported that we need to replace o Triple C. There's no question about it. And the site that has been selected by the department that they are necessary. When we talk about the design concept, you have the architectures come. They're gonna talk about a building.

But part of it, the design principles include ensure safety, both physical and emotional, adopt a trauma informed health care center, nurture relationships with self and family. These are the things as commissioned. That's what contributes to being able to people have people reintegrate with the community and reduce recidivism in the long run. And that's our most important goal. And we can start implementing these now.

We do not need to wait for a new facility. And if we're able to reduce the current population, you won't have to build as big end future.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. I would share. Thanks, Chair. This may be a rare opportunity for government to be efficient.

And what I'm talking about is as we talk about relocating the, animal quarantine area, under Department of AG and Biosecurity, we're looking at a biosecure facility so we can do research of different things. The timing of all this may be very fortuitous. Are you having those conversations? Because when you talk about relocating smaller, more efficient, actually, maybe bigger if we're gonna build this biosecurity facility. So it may be an opportunity.

We we are in partnership with DAGS and the Department of Biosecurity. The director, Sharon Hurd, we were meeting once a month to discuss what her needs were, and we've met with the governor's office twice to discuss what her needs was were and then what she needs moving into the future. So it's they are part of the discussion.

Okay. Good. Because like I said, this may be fortuitous as we're doing all this. We may be actually become a little efficient.

So thank you. Some of those discussions did did involve the laboratories that you're talking about. Yep. Exactly.

Any questions? Sure.

Couple of things. You already have the plan and design monies that you folks started already. Right?

Correct.

Okay. Secondly, just to tell you the truth with biosecurity and department of ag, I think you have to make sure you do your portion of the prison first. I mean, it's been we've been lagging with the biosecurity that had been attached to DOA. And we're not moving as fast as we want to.

But I would say concentrate on your prison because it's been there before biosecurity, but just to make sure that all of the security measures that you folks already had done with the planned designs and you folks have done a good job moving forward.

But don't wait.

I yes. Yes. Please. We do. Just get the prison done because it's several decades, and I'm here 21 years.

I mean We're not.

So just to let you know and so has Carol. So we're we we want something. Okay. But good luck, and thanks for all you do.

Thank you.

Further questions?

Sure. I'll chime in. Thank you so much for all the work. Have you guys looked at and forgive me for diving into this late, but have you guys been looking at other models elsewhere as sort of the models for this?

Yes. I took a trip to Indiana the year before last, and we looked at different construction models. So we looked at standard concrete, you know, rebar. We looked at modular type, construction, and we also looked at prefab type construction. So when we write the RFP, it'll be written in a way that that we can use a combination the developer use a combination of the three to build the facility.

And so I'll give you an example. Under the modular type construction, you can put in all the infrastructure for the complete build out, but you only put in the buildings you need at that time. And when you need to put up the the other structures, you already have the water and sewer and electrical there.

There is the prefab model, which is quicker to build, which means it lowers construction costs, but then you have to have a manufacturer here in the state to be able to make the prefab pieces, if you will, to put up and ship over. And then there's standard construction, which is the most expensive construction.

Is it modular or sorry. As we go forward with with this, I mean, is there an ability to phase things such that if we don't need to build a full on, like, prison, there's ability to, like, base in such a way that we can kind of learn as we go. Yes.

But but I would recommend you put in the the infrastructure you need for the com complete build out first because, otherwise, those costs are gonna keep going up. So if you have that in and you just put in what you need now Right. Right. Right. And then that that that's probably the best way to go, to be honest with you.

I'll just share that we had a good fortune to visit a couple facilities in Norway Not too long ago when they were going through this exact same process. And the particular facility in question that we went to was was murderers and sex offenders convicted murderers and sex offenders only in that facility. And the way that it was built, they were able to basically save, like, a crazy amount of money and achieve way better results than anything we've seen in The United States.

The facility itself didn't even have, like, a perimeter fence or perimeter walls. None of the ACOs or their version of ACOs carried guns at all.

And their recidivism was down to 20% because of the way that I think a lot of the, you know, fundamental kind of principles and the design considerations here speak to were done right.

And so they had also shared their biggest thing was we had actually designed up until that point several other prisons that were more traditional, you know, kind of steel bars and the whole deal, and realized that because that was already built out, they were unable to implement a lot of the stuff that they figured out actually worked on the rehabilitative and other side of the equation. And so on the infrastructure piece, building something that reflects, like, really what, you know, works.

And, frankly, even for the ACOs, it was way better going this direction because they were just way happier. There's way less violence and conflict, and their lifespans and health and mental state and everything else is just, like, off the charts better compared to being sort of stuck in a position where they're more traditionally housed and used.

I'm pretty sure that's just part of the conversation so that we don't end up making the same mistake they did that they had to course correct from Earlier on. And that proof is kind of in the pudding there. Yeah.

Can I make a comment on that?

Sure.

But, again, it is about the programmatic approach, not the building. And that's what the commission is most concerned about. What are we doing to provide the services so that we can move people through the system? And when they come out, they are safer in the community. The community is safer, and they are successful in the community.

And, again, that can start today. It doesn't have to wait until we have a new building.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any further questions? K. If not, we'll take a brief recess. We are reconvening to recommend action on the two resolutions, Senate concurrent Resolution 89 and Senate Resolution 64. Chair would like to recommend that we adopt the amendments proposed by the Community Alliance on Prisons to add additional members to the advisory group that would include two residents or individuals who have been, residents and two of the, ACO staff or who have been ACO staff.

And with that, we would propose to pass both resolutions with amendments. So for the first resolution, Senate concurrent Resolution 89, Chair recommends that we vote to pass with amendments. Vice Chair Lee.

We're voting on both?

Oh, yes. Okay. We okay. You have, two separate sheets.

Yes.

So same recommendation for SR 84.

Great. Voting on SCR 89 and SR 84. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair Fukunaga?

[Roll call]

Chair, the recommendations are adopted.

K. Thank you.

And for the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, it's recommendation of the Chair to pass with amendments as outlined by the Chair of Public Safety. However, we do not have quorum, and we'll be deferring the decision making until Thursday in our 1PM time slot in Room 224.

Okay. With that, we are adjourned. And we will briefly... And then we will subsequently reconvene for PSM only.

Reconvening with Public Safety Committee only. We have three resolutions, or three pairs of resolutions. First is Senate Concurrent Resolution 69 and SR 64, requesting the State Auditor to conduct the performance audit of the Hawaii State Building Council.

We have written testimony in support from Department of Accounting and General Services, comments from the Auditor, supportive written testimony from PRP, supportive testimony for RMA Sales, supportive testimony from Castle and Cooke Hawaii, and let's see.

Supportive testimony from Grassroots Institute for Hawaii. Let's see. Is anyone from Grassroots Institute of Hawaii here? If not, we also have BIA Hawaii. Is there anyone here from BIA Hawaii? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on SCR 69 and SR 64? Okay.

Members, we do have a little question mark on this one because the Auditor is recommending that another agency be tasked to undertake the analysis rather than the Auditor, but we will see how quickly we can move forward. Next, we have Senate Concurrent Resolution... Let me see.

60, requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide an update on the findings of the proof of concept study titled, Breaking Cycles, Alternative Models of Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice on Oahu. And for this afternoon's meeting, we have... Let's see. First up is... Let's see. Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission.

Again, my name is Martha Torney, and I'm one of the commissioners with the Oversight Commission. I don't wanna repeat too much of our previous testimony because we have some of the same lines in here. But again, we do support this very much. We're actively working to transform the system.

The commission is working with the department and doing that to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for people. The Breaking Cycles report, again, has some culturally grounded recommendations in it. We think that's very important as we look as the overrepresentation of Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders in the system.

We believe that SCR 60 plays a critical role ensuring accountability and progress. By requesting a formal update from DCR, the legislature is reinforcing the importance of transparency, coordination, and follow through in the implementation of the Breaking Cycles framework. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Great. Thank you very much. Next for Office of the Public Defender, Hayley Cheng.

Good afternoon again. The Office of the Public Defender is supportive of this resolution. And again, like the previous testifier, we don't want to repeat our prior testimony, but the same concerns are present. We have added or urged the committee to consider that some additional language be included so that the report does contain the following.

Specific and detailed explanations of how each major recommendation from the study has been incorporated into the current design, planning, and operational model of the new facility, identification of any recommendations that have not been adopted, along with clear justification for why they will not be adopted, a clarification of whether the current plan reflects the rehabilitative model that we've been speaking so much about.

And we've had a couple of other suggestions that we think the report should contain. I was fortunate enough to be not only a part of the correctional work reform working group as well as somebody who spoke to Breaking Cycles on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender.

I can convey how much work went into that, the different stakeholders. It was truly amazing what they did. And those recommendations should be taken very seriously. So that is the position of the Public Defender's Office. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll be available for questions.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have, let's see, written testimony in support from Ali'i Pauahi Hawaiian Civic Club, Kehaulani Lum. Next, we have Community Alliance on Prisons, Kat Brady, in person.

Aloha, Chair Fukunaga, Vice Chair Lee, and hello, Senator Inouye. Kat Brady testifying in support of this. I just wanted to say something about the last reso. DOE has not moved. They've they haven't gotten the money to move, and yet we've spent $30 million. And it's like, that's a basic thing in planning. You do your due diligence. Okay.

This report is so amazing. They had massive meetings during the year, the years that they were doing this. And to me the best part is they engaged all these students, and they were amazing. Just so this report is really an example that I hope the department follows in a collaboration, how they collaborated with all these different departments at UH, all these different agencies.

They went to Hālawa, to the Try Think program and talked with the guys, and the guys made collages of things they thought were really important to include in a rehabilitative facility. So to me, this is really important. And Cathi Schar was just amazing. She's the one who sort of led this and then let them go. And they went and they just they surprised her. They surprised all of us.

Their report is really incredible. So I included in my last testimony the link to the report. And in this one, I included the staff survey. And, you know, to me, the most important thing is the staff is asking for training and support. They want improved communications because they said in the staff survey, they make suggestions that are ignored.

And, you know, that's not the way to build a staff, to build a team. You really wanna get people engaged and wanting to suggest things that they think that they see as the line staff. So I just think having, and thank you so much for including them in the advisory group because I think they have a lot to say. And many of the ACOs have been there for 20 years, and they've seen how things have really devolved. So I think it could be really helpful. Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have Robert Merce in person.

Thank you. Chair Fukunaga and Vice Chair Lee. I just wanna say that I support what Kat just said, and I support the amendments that the Office of Public Defender has put forward. I just heard them for the first time, and I wish I had said that. They're very good ideas, and I think they're excellent. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Director Johnson, did you wanna comment on SCR 60?

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Member of the Committee. I apologize. My staff completely missed this one and the next one. So I'll provide verbal testimony, and I'll follow written testimony. So we have no problem providing a report to the legislature on where we stand in the SR 60. I think that'll be kind of a benchmark to see how far we've come in the last couple of years. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any questions for our testifiers? Okay. If not, thank you.

Next, we have SCR 147 requesting the Federal Government to provide supplemental funding to increase compensation for adult corrections officers employed by the state of Hawaii Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. And, I believe we have, testimony from UPW in support. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this resolution? Please come forward.

Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson, Director of Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. I'm not sure how this would work, but I am for giving ACOs across the board 15% pay increase. In addition to that, I believe that they should receive longevity pay increases at the 101520 and 25 year mark because we need those ACLs with experience on the floor. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this agenda. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on SCR 147? Tom Tommy,

the negotiations with UPW is this year?

No. They just they just

Or this is future?

It's future. They just did a contract. I think it's three more years before they can go in.

Okay.

But I don't think if if at all possible, we should wait. If if the Federal Government will pay Sure. Then we should give them the penalties. Thank you.

Of course. Need all the help we can get. Right?

That is correct.

Oh, thanks, Joe. Okay. Well, thank you very much, director.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We'll take a brief recess. Resuming our PSM only agenda. First up, we have let's see, SCR 69 and SR 64 asking the state audit to conduct a performance audit of the Hawaii State Building Code Council. In the written testimony, the auditors office recommended another agency to undertake this analysis.

And since no one was here in person, we're gonna propose to pass it in an unamended form and ask the Senate Ways and Means Committee to take a closer look as to which should be the appropriate agency to conduct the study.

The question is asking, LRC.

Okay. If not, then the vice chair lead for the vote passing meaning unamended one.

Senator Inouye?

Voting on SCR 69 and SR 64, the recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Senator Hashimoto?

Aye.

Aye.

And Senator DeCorte?

Aye.

Recommendations are adopted.

K. On the next resolution, Senate concurrent Resolution 60 requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide an update on the findings of the proof of concept study entitled breaking cycles. Chair recommends that we pass this resolution with amendments recommended by the Office of the Public Defender, as well as incorporating, some additional reporting timeframes so that we can, encourage, greater partnership between the, Community oversight commission and the department. Any questions, concerns? If not, Vice Chair, Lee.

Voting on SCR 60, the recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting all members present. Are there any reservations or no's? Hearing none, the recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. For the last, resolution, Pierre. Senate Concurrent Resolution 147 Senate Resolution 139 requesting the Federal Government to provide supplemental funding to increase compensation for adult corrections officers at Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Again, on this one, we're gonna propose to pass it in an unamended form and look to see how we might work with the department as well as the agencies to address some of the staffing and recruitment issues. With that, go ahead.

Vice chair Lee for the vote.

Voting on SCR 147 and SR 139. The recommendation is to pass with amendments or excuse me, pass unamended. Noting all members present, are there any reservations or notice? Hearing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Hey. Thank you very much, members. We are adjourned.