House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee hearing today. It's Tuesday, March 31, 2PM here in Conference Room 325. Thank you all for being here and providing testimony today. Appreciate it. For testimony today, I'd ask you to keep your testimony to two minutes if possible.

I'll ask you to summarize if it goes on long enough that we need to summarize. So I'll try to be gentle, but I'll ask you to summarize. We've upgraded the microphone and sound system in the room here. So the microphones are in the ceiling. You should be able to speak normally from the podium, and the microphone should pick up your sound without a problem.

But it's pretty sensitive, so it does pick up words that you mentioned to your neighbor if you're whispering. So just be sensitive to that. Everyone on Zoom is really, you know, having to be careful too because they gotta make sure their microphone is off because we've had that issue. Right? People talk, talk, talk. Oh, my microphone's on.

Anyway, if you're on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify. Turn everything on, testify, and then when your testimony is done, you can turn everything off again. Use the Zoom chat function if you have technical issues. Our technical staff can help if they can. If you're disconnected, just rejoin when you can, and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony.

If the power goes off in the building and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you know what we're talking about when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That'll kick us off as of YouTube, and we don't want that because we want everybody to be able to see you when you're standing up here for presenting your testimony. Please conduct yourself with aloha. No profanity or uncivil behavior.

It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all working on this together. So we have a number of three resolutions, both a Concurrent Resolution and a House Resolution that we'll be hearing first and then we'll go into the bills. And vice chair has graciously agreed to manage the hearing portion on the resolution. So I'll ask vice chair to go ahead and begin that.

So we'll go through the resolutions, then we'll go through the bills, and we'll do our decision making at the end. Okay?

Okay. Vice chair?

Thank you very much, chair. We will get started with HCR 93 and HR 85 requesting the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women in collaboration with the Department of the Attorney General to establish a working group and provide a report to the legislature on ways to strengthen protections for survivors of image based sexual abuse. First is the Department of the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, vice chair, chair, members of the committee, deputy attorney general Mark Top with the department. Department provides testimony. It's providing comments on hcr 93 and hr 85. If the intent of this resolution is to create a working group. The department believes that they are better suited to assist the group, not as an active member, but as already legal counsel for the commission.

If there are any questions, any legal issues that arise, the commission is more than welcome to reach out to the department as legal counsel for them. In the alternative in our testimony, we did mention that another alternative could be having the Legislative Reference Bureau, do a nationwide study on all the policies and statutes, provide that to, stakeholders, and stakeholders can put together recommendations similar to some of the bills that already have been introduced this past session. I believe that's similar similar how they address those.

And, again, the department would be more than willing to assist with any legal questions after the stakeholders review that. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you. Kauai State Commission on the Status of Women.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Cheney for the commission on the status of women. Did you guys get my written testimony in dandy because I brought copies?

Yes. We do.

You have it? Okay. Okay. Great. I apologize for the late written testimony and that it did not make it into the packet.

The commission supports the intent of the resolutions and offers the following comments for the committee's consideration to strengthen the effectiveness of the measure. First off, in accordance with public health and sexual violence prevention best practices, the commission recommends that the scope of the working group's efforts be expanded to include prevention and intervention strategies in addition to survivor protections. This expansion will increase community safety and well-being, ensure offender accountability, and strengthen the state's protections and responses to digital sexual violence and image based abuse.

Secondly, the resolutions working group membership needs to be expanded to ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are at the table as diverse perspectives will be needed to inform its policy and programmatic recommendations. I have outlined the entities that I believe are needed to set us up for success, similar to HCR 55 that was passed last session, and the subsequent suggested amendments are detailed in my written testimony.

The commission is not opposed to the AG's suggestion that the legislative reference bureau be utilized to assist with the legal and policy research. However, if the committee decides to move the measure forward, I would ask that the AG not be removed from the working group as the commission does not have the necessary authority, expertise, social, or political capital to ensure the appropriate stakeholders participate and engage in this effort.

Lastly, the commission asked that the report due date be adjusted to have it submitted before the regular session of 2028 and the working group be dissolved on 12/31/2027. Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony and I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

In the IMOI Alliance, Chris Coughfield.

Hello, chair, vice chair, and committee members. I'm Chris Coughfield speaking to you today as the president of IMOI Alliance in support of this resolution. Thank you very much for hearing a number of measures on image abuse this year, and considering them so thoughtfully.

I won't really get all the issues involved, but just as a reminder to anybody who may be listening, there was a 2020 study from the American Medical Association that found that approximately one in five adults in The US reported having had, having been a victim of image based sexual abuse, and it has significant detrimental consequences, economic consequences, financial consequences, psychological consequences. What I wanted to do today was provide some social context for this resolution. You know,

Imua has this amazing powerful, young youth advocate named Amy Zhao. She's really the driving force behind this resolution. She's a Iolani high school senior. She's one of their top seniors. She's one of the most brilliant, talented, and courageous teenagers I've ever known in my life.

She's spoken about being a survivor of image abuse as well as a survivor of gender violence at the legislature before. You may have heard in the news recently that there were a group of under upperclassmen male men from Iolani, who had been sharing, who'd been ranking their female classmates according to some misogynistic categories online. One of the categories that they were using, on the the message board that they were using was how rapable, their classmates were.

And that's really the social climate that we're living within, and that's image of use just takes that, digitizes it, spreads it online where it exists twenty four seven in the most degrading and damaging ways imaginable. And, you know, I I I don't wanna live in a world where, we as a society think that that's okay.

And I hope that you will move this, resolution forward to take a stand on the side of prevention and justice, for survivors of image abuse and so that we can have proactive protections for our state in the future. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That is all we have signed up to testify. Total we received for each of these measures, four in support, zero in opposition, and one in comments. Is there any additional anyone additionally wanting to testify? Okay.

Members, any questions?

I have a chair. Oh, sorry. You go ahead. Okay. Attorney General, mister Tom.

Hi. Good afternoon. It is.

Good afternoon.

Hi. Thanks for being

here. So currently, violation of privacy statutes. If a perpetrator uses AI to superimpose a victim's face on, you know, an explicit image, they didn't actually pose for, is that considered is that prosecutable as a felony in Hawaii right now?

So I apologize, Cher. My testimony is only limited at this point to the resolution, but if I can get a specific situation offline, I can definitely follow-up with you and Okay. Elaborate further on that specific situation.

Okay. Alright.

And I'll and sorry. I wouldn't follow-up. And and also I mean, so does there need to be an actual recording? You know what I mean? Of something that's explicit.

Thank you.

Is that related to the resolution?

Yeah. I believe so. For the working group. Yeah. But anyways

I can follow-up with you on the specific situation. Sure. Rep. I apologize.

No worries.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else's questions for miss Jeannie? Considering the attorney general's testimony requesting to be either removed from the working group or alternatively perhaps having LRB do a study, if the attorney general were to be removed from the working group, does the commission have the capacity to administer it without the attorney general as a member?

I don't think that it will be as effective or helpful without their presence as a co convener and partner in discussion as well as determination of policy recommendation and drafting of the report.

So if if the attorney general were not on the working group, would you still prefer it to be with the commission or with LRB?

I'm happy to partner with LRB and help bring folks together to have a conversation. It's just that for us to really be able to design a system for safety for folks, we need to be looking at prevention efforts, and we also need to be discussing reporting, intervention. And I need more folks at the table to help me understand how this is playing out criminally, civilly, and have folks work together to build a robust set of recommendation for the legislature.

And so, yes, happy to do that, happy to partner with it, happy to continue to collaborate to that end, but I do need some support by myself. I don't think I can manage it. K.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more questions, ma'am?

Yeah. Vice chair. So sorry. For committee status on women? Pardon?

Yeah. For yeah. Thank you for coming back up. The resolution mentions nine different forms of abuse. And so which of these are currently the hardest for survivors to report here in Hawaii?

And is it, you know, due to lack of a gap in the law or lack of specialized training by police or, you know, law enforcement? So just

Sure. I will take a stab at answering. I'll just preface with I'm trained as a social worker. I'm not a lawyer. And so my understanding of the situation is that some of these pieces here, there are avenues to move forward, but there is a gap in our statutes to address this type of violence.

And we have minimal protections right now. We have a violation of privacy, and that's utilized quite frequently. Imua Alliance may have additional information, but there are a number of these that are recent developments and our statutes just haven't kept up with the pace of technology's advancement or the savvy nature of the offenders that are utilizing new technology to exploit folks.

Okay. Well well, thank you for, yeah, trying to address that. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for attorney general. I understand you wanna you would prefer to be removed as a member of the working group. Is there anything, like, is that for a legal reason that you feel that you are unable to participate?

I I believe that the department already is legal counsel for, has a division that's legal counsel for the commission. So I think the recommendation is that they are, assisting the commission in answering any legal, questions, providing legal counsel as they already are legally bound to do, and not necessary at this point to be on the way.

Is it not a normal practice of the attorney general's office to participate in the way requested?

I don't know if it's a normal practice. I apologize. I can follow-up, but I don't know a 100% if it's a normal practice and we're on every working while. Yeah. Thank you.

I apologize.

Thank you. K. Any more question?

No. I I should can I get email alliance? Okay. If you don't mind. La La's query.

Yes.

Of course.

Hi. Thank you for being here. So do you know if there's a type of like, a way for survivors to take down these posts, these offending, you know, nature?

Yeah. So it's it's so there are a few different ways. One is to notify platforms in which, you know, posts or in which image abuse occurs, and hopefully the platforms will do that upon, you know, getting a takedown request from a survivor. Often that's not the case. So there are civil remedies that exist in state law now.

You can litigate that. You can take a platform to court. You can take somebody who's done this to court and the court can order that the offending material will be taken down. There's a piece of legislation going through the legislation right now that would codify a specific civil remedy for image of use. That would be very explicitly detailed process for making sure that that that there's an exact process for making sure that that problematic material is removed.

Okay. Very good.

Okay. Well, thank you for that insight. Sure.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for OHA? Okay. Moving on to H c r HCR193 and HR183 requesting the establishment of a court security and department of law enforcement capacity working group to address this systemic staffing shortages, expanded statutory responsibilities, and escalating fiscal and accountability risks associated with private security contracting at state courts. First, we have the judiciary.

Good afternoon, vice chair Poi Poi, chair Tarnas, members of the committee. Brandon Kimura, administrative director of the courts. Thank you for hearing this measure. We appreciate the opportunity. We support the intent of the measure.

We appreciate the legislature's focus on the significant operational and fiscal challenges stemming from structural staffing shortages at DOE. We appreciate our collaborative relationship and work with DOE leadership, and we are encouraged by this resolution's focus on strengthening the public workforce. We two two points to highlight.

One, we respectfully request that the important work of this group not be in lieu of the judiciary's pending budgetary request, but that it'd be in addition to, and the second is that we respectfully propose an amendment to allow the chair or co chairs to add members with relevant work experience to be a part of the working group. Thank you very much, Naveen, for questions.

Thanks.

That is all we have signed up to testify. We received two in support, zero votes, zero comments. Is there anyone else wishing to provide testimony? Okay. Seeing none, members, any questions?

Chair of is there for judiciary, if you don't mind? Thank you for being here. It mentions that judiciary has had to expend more money for private security. Is do you have a figure on that at all?

We currently have a request to the legislature for 3,250,000.00 for armed private security supplement, the services of DLE.

And do you Kinda have an idea that type of funding, you know, what would that relate to in in full time deputy sheriff type positions to take over the, you know, that type of Kuleana? No.

Not sure of the division of how many DLE deputies it would be. I will say for the because I'm more familiar with the details of our request, that would cover approximately 18 individuals. But the 18 contracted individuals would not receive one eighteenth of that. There's quite a bit that would be the overhead for the company.

Okay. Alright. Alright. Well, thank you for that. Thank you.

Receipt.

Seeing no other questions, I'll hand it over to chair.

Thank you very much, vice chair. Next measure, senate bill two six six seven, senate draft one, on draft one relating to transportation. This measure prohibits certain commercial vehicles from the far left lane on roads with three or more lanes going in the same direction. It restricts motor vehicles that tow a motor vehicle or trailer from the far left lane on roads with three or more lanes going in the same direction with exemptions.

It specifies penalties for restricted motor vehicles who drive in the far left lane on roads with three or more lanes moving the same direction and applies restrictions and penalties to a county with a population of 500,000 or more.

First up, we have the judiciary with comments. Next, we have Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Rajan Chishito with HDOT. We stand in support of this measure. This legislation improves safety by prohibiting oversized commercial motor vehicles and motor vehicles to infrailer from occupying the leftmost lane unless they're actively overtaking or turning left, which thereby improve traffic and reduce the risk of crashes.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2851 Senate draft one, house draft one relating to deaf individuals.

Thank you.

This measure authorizes deaf motor vehicle owners to register their vehicle as being owned by a deaf individual so that a deafness designation appears when a law enforcement officer accesses the motor vehicle's information. First up, we have the Disability and Communication Access Board. In support, not present. Next person said they wish to testify is mister Fritz on Zoom. Thanks.

I always had trouble starting my video. Thank you for the discussion. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm just going to stand on my testimony and support and the points that I made in my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity. I'll be around if you have any questions.

Thank you, mister Fritz. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate bill 2851 house draft one? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure.

Senate bill two five two one senate draft one house draft one relating to emergency services. This measure exempts emergency medical services personnel from commercial driver's license requirements, requires federal state and county firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, and law enforcement officers to maintain proof that they have successfully completed an agency approved or other state approved training on authorized emergency vehicles.

It amends the definition of authorized emergency vehicle under the state traffic code to replace ambulances with emergency medical services vehicles and expands the definition of authorized emergency vehicle to include disaster response and recovery vehicles and department of health vehicles. First up, we have testimony from the Honolulu emergency services department, City and County of Honolulu.

Hi, chair. Good e good afternoon. Ian Santee, deputy director, Honolulu emergency services department. We stand on our testimony that we submitted, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members? Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate bill 2,466, House draft one, relating to the chief elections officer. This measure testifies that the chief election officer may only be terminated for cause. First up, we have League of Women Voters of Hawaii, in support. Next, we have Jamie Detweiler in person.

I was gonna stand on my testimony. It's fine.

Well, you can't stand on your testimony from your seat. You have to come up. Because everyone in TV land has to see you. Introduce yourself, please.

Thank you, chair, vice chair, committee. My name is Amy Monk. I'm with the League of Women Voters, and I would like to stand up my testimony.

In support.

In support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I really try to be transparent to the public so everyone knows what's going on so it's not in code or anything.

Absolutely right.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks, miss Monk. Next, Jamie Detwiler, Hawaii and Islands Republican women.

Aloha, chair Tarnas, vice chair Pfeiffer, and members of the committee, Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican women, testifying in opposition to SB two four six six. The current statute appropriately addresses the requirement for holding the chief elections officer accountable to execute elections in accordance with state and federal laws. Where we have an issue is, when the chief elections officer is non compliant with these laws that I just referred to, there needs to be that mechan mechanism of accountability.

Currently, there are ongoing violations, with elections, with the office of elections, and I'll specify that in the chain of custody issues. There is irrefutable evidence that all four counties cannot have they do not have verifiable chain of custody procedures.

At certain parts of the chain of custody process, observers are not allowed. And so for those reasons, I want to also talk about, you know, the at will position versus, you know, the termination for cause. This creates second and third order effects. So for example, if the chief elections officer is terminated for cause and there is an appeal pending, so then there has to be an acting chief elections officer. That litigation can go on and will have direct impact on elections.

This is not good for the people. So at the very least, we are asking that the committee members consider deferring this bill until these specific issues can be addressed and that we have a solid bill in place and that this will be, enduring instead of just for the moment. So thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, miss DeWeiler. Next, Marlene Tom, Indivisible Hawaii Statewide Network on Zoom.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. On behalf of Indivisible Hawaii and Marlene Thom, testifying in support strong support of SB 24668 house draft one. We support this bill because the position of chief elections officer is critical to the certification of elections. And as long as he or she has passed the standard state probate probationary period, the chief elections officer should be protected from termination because of arbitrary or partisan reasons.

We all know that, election officers and election workers across the country have been increasingly subjected to politicization, harassment, and intimidation. There are groups sowing disinformation and sowing disinformation and distrust in our elections. So it's essential that we take all prudent measures to protect election officers who have proven to be trustworthy and effective. This bill is a major step in that direction and will assure the public that our elections are overseen by competent and ethical officials.

Thank you for your support, and we urge you to advance, s b twenty four sixty six house draft one.

Thank you.

Thank you, miss Tom. Next, Tara Gregory on Zoom.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

Yes. Please proceed.

Okay. Thank you. Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Tamalia Gregory, community advocate focused on election accountability in Hawaii. I stand in continued continued opposition to this bill, and I wanna speak to not only the language, but to the substance and integrity behind it.

We're currently in the aftermath of a declared emergency. We know, communities across the North Shore, Waialua, Waianae, Manoa, Ala Wai, Maui, Molokai are actively rebuilding right now, and yet this body chose not to pause session during critical hearings, limiting public participation. That alone should be cause for deferring this bill specifically. And now instead, we're addressing concerns around transparency, voter role verification, and compliance with federal laws such as HAVA and NVRA.

We're also facing the reality that a comprehensive audit, a fundamental responsibility of this role to verify elections, has not been completed during the tenure of the current chief elections officer.

I would say that the law is bipartisan or should be. At the same time, this bill moves forward with language that still lacks clarity. Specifically, the term cause on page one, lines 10 through 13, it remains undefined. So I do ask this committee, why is this body introducing the term cause without defining it, leaving it open to interpretation rather than anchoring it in a clear, enforceable standard already required under existing law, because of concerns before you are not abstract.

They include ongoing issues raised in public meetings regarding chain of custody documentation, voter roll maintenance, and compliance with federal standards.

This is where the integrity issue becomes clear. Federal law under 52 USC 20,701 requires election records to be preserved for 22 months. Under Hawaii law, HRS eleven-1154 it requires ballots to be sealed and securely controlled. But neither of these laws requires that ballots be completely inaccessible or shielded from lawful review. Preservation is not secrecy, and this is what the AG is utilizing to delay an audit.

Security is not a barrier to accountability. These concerns are reflected in the Elections Commission's meetings. I've attended since 2024, and sometimes they go four or five, sometimes six hours. If cause is the issue, the existing record already raises serious questions that warrant review and action. When federal law and funding are involved, which they have been, this doesn't stay here.

It brings federal scrutiny and legal consequences. I do request this as deferred as well to define cause, so that we can enforce the laws already in place both at the state and federal level. And the people of Hawaii deserve accountability even though they've been marginalized during this process, not ambigu not ambiguity. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose this bill. Mahalo for the time to

speak. Thank you very much for your testimony, miss Gregory. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 2466? Yes. Please come up and introduce yourself.

I don't need the glasses. Good afternoon, everybody. Well, Lynn Christian here. Thank you. First off, chair, vice chair, committees, members, You know, basically, I had three people who just said what my testimony was gonna be, so I just wanna reiterate this.

For the last week, I've been down my Lou and Holly, and I'm always here testifying whether it's in support or opposition of bills. And I did bring up that question with representative Quinlan the other day there at WaiGuo. Why isn't this being paused while we help the the victims? The answer he gave me made some sense, but at the same time, if you saw on social media, the hundreds, if not thousands of people who are trying to help the victims.

So they are not here to testify whether it's in support or opposition of any bill.

This bill specifically, s b two four six six, I'm in total opposition of it only because that word cause, who is defining that word cause, it could be interpreted in many different ways by different people. And, unfortunately, for my personal opinion, Scott Noggle has not done his job as a chief elections officer, and I've stated that many times in our election commissions meetings. The one thing that I did bring up, you know, people talk about integral, people doing their job. I said this the last time.

I don't think you were here, representative Tarnas, but there was a dog that got a ballot in the mail, and that woman testified at our elections commissions meeting.

Her dog, her dog's name was Rascal, I believe, had her last name and had an address, and she's thinking it came from one of the medical things that she did with her dog. He got a ballot. So if a dog can get a ballot and we've had testimony that dead people get ballots and people who no longer live in residences get ballots, then we have a problem. That means the chief elections officer has not done his job. Now with cause could be many things.

In my opinion, cause means you're not doing your job. So either you get retrained and do your job correctly or you get removed. So this bill is protecting him or her, whoever may be the next one, and we need to stop that. So with that, I just wanted to say that I'm in opposition. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. And would you be so kind as to give your name to Sure. Our staff, Hamana. That that way we keep a good track as to who's testifying, and I do appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure?

If not, questions, members. Question. Yes. Ramesh Mizzou. League of Women Voters, please.

Miss Monk. Sorry. Please join us.

We don't have a lot of testifiers, so I thank you for being here. The question would be and I don't know if you're able to answer this, but regarding the current CEO, chief elections officer Do you know if it's a paid position, and do you know if he has any kind of regular performance review?

It is a paid position. And the review is done by the Elections Commission. Though I don't think they have been able to do one recently.

So it's internal by the commission members then. K. So if if that is I'm sorry. Okay. So if that is the case, then the elections commission would be in the best position to ascertain whether they have the they want to terminate the the person or not.

Because I think existing laws, they have the ability by full to vote out the current person or vote in a new person as as required. So the question would be, the commission is currently the body that does the performance review. So they would be in the best position to determine whether that person, the CEO, is doing a a decent job or if there is cause to determine use.

Actually, I'm not probably in a good position to answer that. I'm either a lawyer, a legal lawyer. I do know that the law says that the commission is responsible for for hiring the person. But beyond that, I'm not quite sure exactly how they administer their duties in determining his performance as a chief ex elections officer. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.

Yes. Brett Garcia.

Thank you, chair. For miss what's your name? Marlene Tom from Protect Democracy, moved forward. Zoom.

Yes. I'm here.

Thank you for being here. In your testimony, you mentioned something about the chief elections officer once they pass their probationary period. But to my understanding of the current statute, it says that the chief elections officer shall be an at will employee or and he currently is an at will employee. I thought that at will employees don't have a probationary period. Is that your understanding as well?

I am not positive, but I believe the language of passing the probationary period was in the original wording of the bill that as long as, you know, the the chief elections officer passes the probationary period. I I I believe that even at will, employees are subject to probationary period, it could possibly be determined at the elections commissions discretion.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. And

I I can I'll follow-up and, get back to you.

Please do. Thank you. And and the follow-up chair. Okay. And for miss Tom as well, you mentioned that you're in support of this bill.

So since the bill does not say exactly what causes or define cause, what is your definition of terminated for cause? What would be a cause that would qualify for for termination?

Well, I mean, it's cause, you know, has sort of, I would say, standard definition among industry, among, you know, companies. But in this case, it would be, as I believe has been stated, be determined by the elections commission. Personally, I would define it as gross negligence of of, you know, dereliction of duty. So if there is proof of specific duties that the the elections office chief elections officer has not performed, you know, to expectations, then then that would be cause for termination.

Okay. Thank you, and lastly, chair. And if that's the cause, then doesn't the current elections commission currently have that prerogative already? I mean, it's it's it's their authority to hire and fire the chief elections officer for for whatever reason they deem necessary. So if it's very broad and and we're assuming what cause is, then don't we assume that the that the elections commission has that that leeway already?

As long as they can, provide evidence of of the offenses. Right? Again, as has been mentioned, transparency is, is the key word here. It's, you know, there is decreasing trust in our elections and how they are managed, for, you know, various reasons, you know, news media, you know, announcing, rumors and and so forth.

But, again, if the elections commission has proof and can provide, you know, solid evidence backed up by data that the chief elections officer is not performing his or her duties, well, his in this current case, then, yes, that would be caused.

But as far as I know, to date, we have not seen any of such evidence.

Alright. Thank you for such.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? If not

Miss Detwiler.

You have a question for miss Detwiler?

I do.

Miss Detwiler, please join us.

I know it's her name. Hi. Good afternoon, ma'am. Thank you for being here. So, and for your so do you believe this, bill is gonna make it harder for the chief elections officer to be removed?

I believe I believe it would, make it more complicated to hold him accountable or hold whoever holds that position, accountable, and that's gonna that's gonna impact elections as I said earlier. Right.

And in your testimony in reference to violations already proven, I think the past testifier just now being questioned was saying if there were, but I believe there is. Right. Because I know first for real quick. I know first hand Did

on the county?

you vote

On the bill

I am.

Not on allegations. Okay.

This is in allegations. Firsthand, I had a letter from my office to Maui County County Clerk's office to ask about chain of custody from the last elections. She could not respond and tell me her chain of you know, the chain of custody. So in your, testimony, you point to that. Can you elaborate a little more,

If I may.

Because that is As

chair, I'm asking you to focus on the bill, which is not regarding allegations of concerns about chain of custody. It's specifically relating to the hiring or the firing for a just cause of the chief elections officer.

we could focus on the bill, that would be best.

Right. So if

Yeah. And there's just cause. What miss Detwiler mentioned, what I'm mentioning, and how this bill is going to address current I mean, there's rules in place as you stated again that can take care of issues, but, obviously, it's not working for this chief elections officer.

Go ahead, please.

If I may, chair.

Focus on the bill. Yes.

Yes. Yes. But there was a reference made to there's questioning evidence. So there were permitted interaction groups. Right.

So the premise of this is the performance of the elections officer. Right? We're talking about it. This is a human resources personnel issue. Right?

An at will issue versus cause. What is cause and defining cause. But in relationship to that, our actual when we talk about cause, is the employee performing their duties? That's what we're talking about.

Right? But we are not actually going through the performance review in this hearing.

Correct. Correct. But this bill

hearing allegations about conduct. We're talking about It's okay. If you could focus on the bill, that would be best.

Sure. Sure.

Sure. So this bill would like to change the current procedure in place.

Understood.

Right? And so what I'm opposed to is the details in this bill.

I I got it.

Right? To change that. Because it really is contrary what this bill is purporting to do. Right? It's it's contrary to the Atwill process.

I I understand. Right. That you disagree with the

That's why I oppose this bill.

Sure.

For good reason. Go ahead.

Just cause. And according to your testimony and your earlier testimony, stating some violations. Can you say

representative. This is not the elections commission. We're not Sure. Reviewing the chief elections officer in this hearing.

He's asking a question about the term chair.

I'm chair.

In the I am talking to our representative here.

Point of order. Point of

I I am providing a point of order. Okay.

Well, I just

Ask your question, rep Shimizu, and we'll go ahead for the answers. I was My attitude is quite correct. It's

quite discriminatory, actually.

Okay. Recess.

Okay. Recess.

Reconvening the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs, we are currently hearing testimony on senate bill two four six six, house draft one. And we're talking I'd like to talk about rep Shimizu, you're asking a question. I would like you to focus your question on the bill, not on any performance review of the chief elections officer.

So if you could ask a question related to the bill, that'd be great.

I thought I would

Try again.

To cause any disruption. And my my question was specific to the term just cause. And if there was any just cause that was exhibited on any meeting that is part of record, would that be evidence of just cause as as someone who has attended meetings and would be able to understand that? Would would you say that it would be obvious in those meetings what just cost is?

Thank you for the question, rep. I will defer that to a human resources expert, but going back to the bill, chair, the bill is flawed.

I understand.

And at the minimum, I I would respectfully ask for a deferral on this bill. That's why I oppose it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you.

Other questions, chair, members? Thank you very much.

You're up.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Let's go on to the next measure. Senate bill 2,140, Senate draft one, house draft one relating to county labor standards.

This measure authorizes counties to require contractors to disclose employee wage, benefit, power, and employment status information and to allow counties under certain conditions to deny, revoke, or or suspend building permits for violations of related laws. It establishes a process by which an owner or developer may replace a noncompliant contractor and transfer the building permit to the replacement contractor. First up, we have Department of, Labor and Industrial Relations.

Hello, sir. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members. Bill Kinstman, deputy director of DLIR. The department supports this measure that has the potential to increase comp, employer compliance with labor laws and level the playing for construction contractors. Thank you and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Pacific Resource Partnership, mister Pereira.

Thank you, chair Tarnas, vice chair of Poitboye, members of the committee, Andrew Pereira with Pacific Resource Partnership. Standing in strong support of SB twenty one forty SD one HD one County Labor Standards. In addition to our written, testimony chair and vice chair, I just wanted to highlight this press release from September 2023. This is a press release from the US Department of Labor where a contractor from the Mainland was caught red handed cheating on Kauai.

Cheating a 110 construction workers out of their hard earned overtime pay in addition, to taxes that support, services for our residents.

So when they're not paying their workers overtime, they're also cheating on federal, state, and county taxes that should be going to government coffers. Just wanted to to read a quote from this press release from Terrence Trotter who is the local representative for the US Department of Labor. Our investigation found blatant and prolonged effort by SNA Industries, that's the cheating contractor, and the subcontractors to deprive 110 construction workers of their hard earned overtime wages.

Employers can't establish separate agreements with workers that don't meet at least the legal standards for wage payments, especially regarding overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week. Construction construction cost savings can't be taken out of the workers' pockets, end quote.

Now that's a remarkable press release, but what's truly remarkable, chair, vice chair, and committee members, is that just a year, two years later, PRP found the same cheating contractor, SNA Industries, bidding for jobs here in Hawaii. So it's cheat, rinse, and repeat. Cheat, rinse, and repeat.

And county labor standards will go a long way in getting these cheating contractors out of our state, making sure that workers are paid correctly, taxes are paid correctly, and it's just another tool in the toolbox that we desperately need to keep these cheating contractors out of Hawaii. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Hawaii Regional Council Carpenters.

Hello, chair Tarnas, vice chair of Hawaii Point members. I'm Mark Anthony Clemente for the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. We stand in strong support of this measure. I just wanna echo a lot of what miss Pereira had already mentioned prior to my own testimony. We also stand our own written testimony.

But I do wanna add that, about one in five contractors cheat, and that's costing our state about $53,500,000 in revenues. Unpaid workers' comp insurance, taxes that really should be going to our coffers to pay for infrastructure. This is really a bill to combat bad actors who are not only cheating local workers, local families, but our state and county governments. Thank you so much for hearing this, Ezra.

Appreciate your testimony. Next person to say they wish to testify is Ted Kefalas. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2140? Please.

Mark.

Chair Tarnas, members of the committee, Nathaniel Kinney from Pacific Resource Partnership. I just wanted to, dovetail on, Andrew Pereira's testimony that he gave before. A contractor called me yesterday, in the afternoon, and, he's doing, a renovation at one of the large hotels in Maui. SNA Industries is currently on another job in Maui. It's about a 20 to $30,000,000 hotel renovation jobs.

So it's not just right after the violation. This is actually this third or fourth job they've actually gotten and taken away from local contractors. So, again, the importance of the bill is to stop people like this. Thank you. Sure.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members?

Sure.

Alright. First no. First rep Cochran.

Miss De Pereira, PRP?

Yes, sir.

Aloha. Hi. Thanks for being here. And I have to say for once I agree with you and, and also with Carpenters Union. So I appreciate your testimony.

Thank you very much.

So, yeah, because I get it. And so how I see this happening, especially after read the rebuilding of Lahaina currently. So how do you folks, get involved, if at all, and address people. I know there's a lot of, contractors, developers that are paying people cash.

Perhaps these people are not even from the country Here and they will be glad to work hard for cash. No need medical or all that stuff. Take their money, they go back home where they came from. So, I have first hand knowledge that this is occurring quite frequently. So will this, you know so I get that this could address those And currently, are you folks aware and addressing it too through your efforts?

Yes, representative Cochran. Actually, through our work with Hawaii Carpenters Union, we actually conduct investigations. I can tell you that we have two active investigations open right now on two separate islands where we know 100% that these contractors are cheating workers out of their hard earned overtime pay, and also, you know, cheating on taxes because of that. And so if you have any knowledge of cash payments, we'll we'll be definitely glad to take those those tips and then put them to to use with our investigators.

We also have an entire campaign called Play Fair in Hawaii, which is on our website, and it urges anybody that knows that a contractor is cheating to report that.

They can do so anonymously, and we follow-up with every tip that we get, whether it's through the community such as yourself or whether it's through our our website and our Playfair in Hawaii, campaign.

Okay. Very good. And you think this is definitely will hit, developers and contractors hard?

Yes. Because it's another another, quiver in our, toolbox, so to speak, so so that, we can catch these cheaters at the county level so that there's some serious rep repercussions for them, like SNA Industries, which I mentioned previously, that if they are caught, they won't be able to continue to rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you again for your efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you, rep Cochran. Other rep Shimizu.

Oh, do you know that? Do you know that?

Do you

know that?

L I R. Mister Kunstman.

Mister Perra just made a statement that if this bill passes, that reoccurrence by this bad actor contractor will not be repeated. I don't see that in the bill. Is is that something that can already happen, that persons who is a violator, has penalties, would already be banned from doing further work until they are cleared of their fines and so forth? What what are the penalties that can go as far as it can to prevent these bad actors from repeating these violations?

So if you're talking about state laws, it depends on which state law you're talking about. For the most part, most of our state laws don't include a kind of provision that would put somebody out of business for not complying with the law. Right? If they don't pay minimum wage or overtime or they're not providing workers' comp, they if it came to our attention and we did an investigation and issued findings, they would potentially have penalties. But it wouldn't necessarily take away their ability to do business.

You know, this bill is always a company to ask for wage information, so on and so forth, which people already have that. So wouldn't they be able to just come to you and say what what is what is the information that this bill empowers them to do?

So we don't really have that information. We don't have the wage information from employers and employees. We may have it in aggregate from one particular program for the purposes of reporting wages for unemployment insurance taxes, but our other programs don't necessarily don't have that information.

According to HRS 387 dash six, the the employer is supposed to have those that information readily available.

So, yes, we have the right to go to the worksite and ask for that information if we are conducting an investigation. But we don't, like, send out all employers request for that information, all 33,000 or whatever it is. It's only when we conduct an investigation, which is mostly based on complaints by employees. It depends. It depends on the employer.

If it's a wage and hour violation, there's state jurisdiction and there's federal jurisdiction. So the employers that are under state jurisdiction are those with gross proceeds of $500,000 or less and are not involved in interstate commerce.

So a vast majority of the employers for the purposes of wage and hour laws in the state are actually under the federal jurisdiction, which is I think in the example that he gave, it was because the feds were involved and did the the investigation because it was not a mom and pop employer per se.

lot to learn about this.

There's a

No. I I I'm just seeing some gaps that hopefully what it Can I ask one last question? Can I ask, Carpenter's union? You know, one of the testimony that's opposing this is that this bill would and I and I totally get the intent of this bill. I I'm totally for that.

We will need to get out bad actors. We need to protect legitimate contractors and so forth. One of the testimony is this bill would even threaten harm the owner because the owner is is an innocent bystander.

We will need to get out bad actors. We need to protect legitimate contractors and so forth. One of the testimony is this bill would even threaten harm the owner because the owner is is an innocent bystander.

He hires somebody to do his job to do his job. And in this bed after now, if found out according to this bill, if the bill works the way it's supposed to, then you kick off the job, but the owner has to go through gymnastics now to to get a new permit, get a new contractor.

There's gonna be delays. There's the permitting process is already overloaded. This bill says, you know, they're gonna get in by a week of over, you know, short period that they're 19 new time for a proper stroke. How how do you see the owner being the the innocent bystander kind of like kicking the pit for this? Where whereas if if this bill doesn't happen, the contractor finished the bad after contractor finishes his work and and supposedly, DLIR penalizes them.

Unpaid workers get their fair share of because they're the ones that really get the get the brunt of it. They're not paying their their full wages. Right? They they get all these wages. So how would you comment on the the consequence of the owner really suffering with this bill?

Sure. Thank you, representative, for that question. You know, from our perspective, there are many victims of cheating contractors. For one, the owner, which is bill passed, maybe. But, really, it's about the workers.

It's about our state and local economy, the millions and millions of dollars we're losing. From the owner's perspective, that's why we put in that revision early on about being able to transfer your permit. And I understand your your concern about the delays in permitting and whatnot. But keep in mind also that this only authorizes DPP to deny, revoke, or suspend a permit, so they have that discretion.

So should you be an innocent owner, landowner, developer, and you innocently hire a bad actor, those things can be explained through the proper authorities and channels.

So that's how I would

respond to them.

Okay. Thank

you. Thank you, Joe.

The main thing here is we can't put out the message that following the law is a competitive disadvantage. I think we all should be following the law as well.

Agreed. And that's why we rely on departments to administer and enforce the law.

Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thanks to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2245 house draft one, relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees.

This measure prohibits new state employees from taking official action on matters they worked on before state employment. It prohibits former permanent employees of the office of the governor and office of lieutenant governor from representing persons or businesses for a period of twelve months after termination from state employment. First up, we have OIC Ethics Commission. Mister Harris.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. On behalf of Hawaii State Ethics Commission, we're in strong support of this measure. We'll stand on our testimony, but just for members of the public, I'm just gonna briefly explain what this bill does.

Yes. Thanks.

This is an attempt to address the revolving door concern that, you know, many of us have heard about discussed nationally, and it follows both federal and other, predominantly county examples in trying to establish a reasonable and common sense measure preventing people from working on matters that they've worked on for pay or private employer right before entering into state service for a brief window of time, and it also strengthens our existing post employment law to focus specifically on permanent employees of the office of the governor, which presumptively should have been included previously, and I think it was an oversight.

Happy to answer any questions you have. Again, chair, thank you for hearing this measure. Aloha.

anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members. Questions? Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure.

Is there

Senate bill 2246. Senate draft one, house draft one relating to financial disclosures. This measure expands the scope of persons who are subject to public financial disclosure requirements and clarifies that an amount of stock may be reported by a value of shares. First up, we have Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

Thank you, chair. Again, Robert Harris on behalf of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission. We are in support of this measure. This is a measure this committee has heard before. We do offer three amendments, which I'd like to briefly explain.

One, the first amendment is one that this committee already made, which is to make changes to the language to ensure that the obligations apply regardless of what job title someone has. Certain agencies have a history of changing job titles quite quite frequently. The attempt is simply to say identify those individuals and say, if the job title changes but the job description is largely the same, it's gonna stay with them. Second, the previous committee made a amendment to allow people to rep report the value of shares.

We're suggesting for greater flexibility to allow individuals to report either the value or number of shares, either or, which is our current practice currently.

Particularly for someone who owns a LLC by themselves and they own 100% of the company, it may be difficult to value what the value of the shares of the company. So, again, allowing that flexibility meets the requirements of both the constitution and generally shows a conflict of interest. So, again, we're encouraging that flexibility. Finally, we're suggesting the tech amendments from SB 2248 also be included here, which is just trying to make sure that those changes are also incorporated this year if possible.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this Measure 2246? If not, questions members? Seeing none, let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 3055 Senate draft two, house draft one, relating to false impersonation of union representatives.

This measure prohibits a person from falsely impersonating an employee organization representative and establishes a cause of action and civil remedies. First up, we have Union of Public Workers, UPW. Good afternoon, Chair. United Public Workers.

United Public Workers. United,

good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the committee to testify on behalf of UPW, stand on our testimony in support. Thank you

very much.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Government Employees Association, mister Sebast.

Hi, chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebas for HGA. We'll we'll stand on our testimony in in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Ben Straka on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas and members of the committee. My name is Ben Straka here on behalf of the Freedom Foundation, a thirty five year old nonprofit organization that works to advance the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited accountable government in which, unfortunately, is the singular target of senate bill three zero five five.

As part of our work, the Freedom Foundation operates an ongoing educational campaign to inform public employees about their first amendment right to cancel or refrain from union membership as recognized by the US Supreme Court in 2018.

Union officials have already singled out the Freedom Foundation in both their written and in person, excuse me, testimonies on this bill and have specifically told lawmakers that senate bill three zero five five is meant to, quote, get out in front of, end of quote, the Freedom Foundation's supposedly deceptive activities, citing the state of Oregon as an example.

In fact, senate bill three zero five five is modeled after a highly controversial bill adopted along party lines in Oregon last year that made it illegal to, quote, falsely impersonate the union representative, end quote, and created a private right of action for public sector unions to sue over those accusations and receive civil damages per violation.

However, as with senate bill 3055, union officials in Oregon relied entirely on unfounded accusations and were unable to produce a single documented case of the Freedom Foundation misrepresenting the source of our communications. Nevertheless, the legislation in Oregon was so vague, the penalty is so severe, and its targeting of our organization so obvious that it was clear the goal was to silence our outreach to public employees entirely by making it prohibitively risky. Oregon's legislation is currently the subject of an ongoing federal lawsuit.

The law has been roundly criticized by observers such as the Wall Street Journal for its punitive intent to silence the speech of the single organization.

Simply put, senate bill three zero five five shares exactly that same premise and goal. Senate bill three zero five five borrows directly from the Oregon legislation, but maybe even bigger. The bill rattles off a list of terms, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, etcetera, without defining any of them. As in Oregon, the only thing this bill is clear about is that it allows unions to sue their admitted target, the Freedom Foundation, over claims that our communications somehow purports to be authorized or approved by a union.

Notably, the bill only gives union officials, not the public employees actually receiving our communications, the right to sue.

And as far as we can tell, no public employees have testified in support of this bill nor have its proponents produced any evidence that our communications are misleading. The same was true in Oregon. Sadly, the real intent behind senate bill 3055 is not to address any legitimate cases of false impersonation, but rather to give unions a broadly drafted statutory weapon with which to reach costly law fair against the Freedom Foundation.

As shown by our federal lawsuit over the Oregon bill, we strongly believe that this legislation is an unconstitutional attempt to silence our speech. A nearly identical bill has also surfaced in New York, and that is no coincidence.

We respectfully urge the committee to recognize this as a cookie cutter approach by one of the nation's most powerful private special interest groups to shut down a political opponent, and please reject it. Thank you for your time, and I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate bill 2519 House draft one relating to law enforcement. Measure establishes new deadlines for the completion of law enforcement standards board certification responsibilities. First up, we have Adrian Dacqua with Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair of Hawaii, members of the committee. Adrian Dacqua on behalf of Standards Board. Standards Board is in strong support of this measure, which would extend the certification deadline from one day and three months to two years and three months effectively. The board is on the right track. We just need more time to we would ask that the effective date be effective upon approval.

The failure to move this bill along would render any homicide, sex assault, any type of major crime, big or small, we would not be able to successfully prosecute if the law enforcement officers, whether the detectives, officers, they would not be properly certified, and they would render all of their work moot. So we would ask that that this move forward. Happy to answer any questions.

Maybe just explain to everybody, what do you have to accomplish by the deadline that we're moving here?

We have to set up we have 13 duties set out in 01/30/1993. The The biggest of which is to set up a certification database, education, training standards, keeping track of moving officers, etcetera, etcetera. So right now, we have one full time employee. We've got the budget and hopefully the funding to grow and move in the right direction.

You've got a the deadline is to complete this, setting up the certification process.

Correct. By by currently, it is 06/30/2026.

That's what you're asking. And that's what this bill does, extends that.

To 06/30/2028. Okay. Correct.

Just wanna make sure everyone's on the same page. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Victor McGraw who is the administrator of Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board.

Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair of poipoi. My name is Victor McGraw. I'm the administrator for the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board. I also stand on my testimony. I've got a few different details in my written testimony, but substantially similar to the chair.

I will add to setting up the operations of the board. We also need to be 100% ready to maintain the operations of the board by that deadline date. And that incorporates all the officers who will be leaving, the new officers who are coming in, making sure that they're trained, tracking them throughout their careers here in Hawaii. And also, unfortunately, the board will certify officers.

The board also has a responsibility of doing due process to decertify officers, when they are found to be either non compliant with the standards of training required by the board or noncompliance with the, codes of conduct that will be established by the board.

And I will be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Mark Tom, attorney general. Deputy attorney general, Mark.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, deputy attorney general Mark Tom for the department. Department is in strong support of Senate bill 2519 h d one. This is part of the Hawaii law enforcement coalition. That coalition is made up by the attorney general's office.

The county the police chief from each county, the prosecutor from each county, as well as the director from DLE, Department of Law Enforcement. And this bill was introduced with unanimous agreement by all members of the law enforcement coalition. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, members? I have a question, maybe for, I don't know which whether mister Dacca or mister McGraw.

I had some questions about sort of update on the law enforcement standards board and, for example, your your membership of the board. You know, reading the law and the establishment of the board, it lays out all the different members. Are you do you have a full complement of members on the board?

We do not have a full complement. We are currently at 14 out of 18 members.

Most of them are law enforcement there, but there are a number of public members. Do you are you able to attract

members of the public? We have one vacancy for the county of Kauai. The other three member other three vacancies are the law enforcement are are police officers from other counties. Got it.

Okay. And and not too many people know about you, and I'm wondering what kind of public outreach and engagement have you done or do you intend to do?

We do have a website, a a public available website. It has all of our meetings, minutes, board packets, etcetera, to fill the vacancy on the the civilian vacancy for the county of Kauai, we have reached out. Or I was put in touch with, I believe, someone I believe the managing director from from Kauai. So it's another avenue to follow.

And and just so the public understands, when you send out the agenda, how far in advance do you usually send out

Sunshine requirements, I believe, are six days.

the agenda for your meetings?

So that's your standard practice is to do it within six days as required. Correct. Alright. Okay. And then if somebody wanted to learn more about it, they I would direct them to your website,

by all means.

Okay.

K. Thank you.

Correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions, members? Yes. Rep. Cochran

Sorry. Can I ask, a question?

I this is and I heard that you, need an extension, and stuff. So I'm reading some testimonies and it's saying that, you know, this is going to create a commute a more safety for the community, appropriate training and certification process. So currently, things are not appropriate?

Sure.

Things are appropriate, but they're not uniform because you have county standards. For example, the standards at HPD may be very different from officers from DOCARE or sheriffs in the DLE. So what the goal the the purpose of the board is to have a statewide uniform standard. So it's not to say that anyone's deficient or obviously below par, but we would like to have some kind of uniformity across the board.

Okay. One follow-up, Chair?

And so I know MPD, Maui, you know, accredited and stuff, fire departments get accreditation. So is this so are are all counties non accredited, or are we trying to reach these standards across the board too? Do you know if this is trying to address that portion of standardization, accreditation?

Sure. Of course.

All of the counties are already accredited.

Or or accredited.

Okay.

I think there are a couple of agencies that are working towards being accredited.

Okay.

But but the standards board would have a statewide standard in addition to what the counties already do.

Okay. Great. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, rep Cochran. Other questions?

Seeing no other questions, thank you very much for the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure we're taking testimony on today, Senate Bill 2256 relating to Brother Joseph Dutton's Day. This designates April 27 of every year as Brother Joseph Dutton's Day. First up, we have Department of Accounting and General Services, our state archivist.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of comptroller Keith Regan and the Department of Accounting and General Services. I am doctor Adam Jansen, your state archivist and administrator of the public archives. DAG stands on its testimony in support of this bill. We discussed this in this committee last year, so I appreciate being before you again. As a keeper of public memory, I really want to stress how important remembering brother Dutton is.

We we approved a a laulau day and a kimchi day last year. Fabulous. All about the food as you can tell. Should not somebody who gave over forty years of his life administering to the afflicted, worked at the Baldwin home for the boys. Should we not remember him and hold him in high regard as an exemplar of conduct?

The archives is blessed to have his personal papers, his writings, his letters, his photographs, and we're more than willing to digitize those, get those online so that they could be used in education to really tell everybody who was this person and why is he worthy of being remembered. So I would encourage you, please consider this bill. Let's get it through this year. And thank you for this opportunity. If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, doctor. Next, we have Patrick Bullock. Take your time, sir. I appreciate your, steadfast determination.

Thank you.

We're determined as well.

Representative, Tarnas and, Poipoi, members of the committee, what he said.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Patrick Bolen, representing the Joseph Dutton Guild. We support the bill strongly, the merits of which are expressed very well in Section one, so I will not repeat them. You have my written testimony. In the interest of time, I will not read it all off.

I have taken the liberty of attaching to my testimony the testimony of two cola pop of patients, constituents of madam vice chair, In the Senate, they're 91 and 100 and two years old respectively. And so, they do not navigate Zoom or Internet positions easily. It would be nice if the Committee report could specify that two of the individuals testifying were patients from Kalapapa. Finally, we would ask that the bill be passed as is without amendments, including the effective date of the appellant's approval.

Thereby avoiding the uncertainties of the conference committee process.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we have testimony from, Peter Skelly. Sir, what are the names of the individuals you were referring to?

It's Milley Watanoukie and John Aruda. It's the second page of my testimony.

Oh, okay. Second page of your testimony.

Okay. Thank you

very much. Appreciate that. K. Next person said they wish to testify is Brenda Duarte.

Aloha. Thank you for the opportunity to speak up in support of this bill. I had family I have family members from Kalaupapa both alive and gone, and I just think that supporting this bill recognizes not only brother Josephine, but the people whom he served.

Indeed. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Seeing no questions, thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Let's go now to the top of the agenda for decision making.

Thanks all members for being here for quorum. On the first three measures which are resolutions, I'm going to ask vice chair to take the lead on decision making. Vice chair.

For hcr 93 and hr 85, The recommendation is the same for both, and we're gonna do the both for the resolutions together for the HR and the HCRs.

Can you do it?

Delegation.

Okay. So for the first one, HCR 93 and HR 85, Based on the testimony, the recommendation is to take the commission on the status of women's amendments, but remove the attorney general and add LRB in place of the attorney general. And moving forward, I would suggest meeting perhaps with the introducer to see if there is an alternative, but I think that's the best moving forward for now. And that's the recommendation. Any comments, members, questions?

Okay. Representative Pablo, if you could call.

Voting on hcr 93 and hr 82, vice chair 85. Thank you, chair. So I'll say that again. Voting on resolutions HCR 93 and HR 85. Vice chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

Representative Belotti, excused. Representative Hashem?

. Yes.

Both chair and vice chair vote aye

Aye.

Representative Kahalua, aye. Representative Sayama, excused. Representative Takayama.

Aye.

Representative Garcia.

Representative Shimizu.

Representative Cochran.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you, Representative Covalon.

Next is HCR 114 and HR 106. I think this one is good to go as is. The working group for data point intellectual properties has been doing good work. They just need more time because they have extensive work to continue doing. So as is, any questions or comments? Okay.

Vice Chair's recommendation, voting on HCR 114 and HR 106. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is, notating the presence of all members except representative Sayama and representative Belatti. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

HCR 193 and HR 183. The recommendation is to take the judiciary's amendment from their testimony. They offer an additional be it resolved clause in their in their testimony if you guys wanna look at it. So we're gonna adopt that proposed amendment. And then also in the committee report, note that, the intention of this is to be in addition to and not in lieu of their budget request.

And that is recommendation. Comments, concerns, questions?

Voting on hcr 193 and hr 183 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noticing the presence of all members except the excused absence of representative Sayama and representative Pat Falati. Any members voting no? Any with reservations? Vice chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much for taking the vote.

Thank you very much for doing all that. Let's move on to the bills now. Senate bill 2667 Senate draft one, house draft one. On on this measure, I'd like to recommend we make some clarifying amendments here. Page two, line six to 15.

It's currently drafted. Subsection c is not really clear about the penalty tier that applies in the third violation that occurs more than three years after the prior violation. So I wanna clarify that by the following. So subsection c will read, violation of any of the provisions of this section shall subject the violator to the following penalties. One, for a first violation or any violation not preceded within three years of a prior violation, a fine of no more than $250.

Two, for a second violation committed within three years of a prior violation, a fine of no more than $500. And for a third or subsequent violation committed within three years of a prior violation, a fine of no more a fine of no more than $1,000, attendance at a traffic safety course, or both. So I think that will make it clearer.

I also would recommend that we include a savings clause as follows saying this act does not affect rights or duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date. So those are my recommended changes.

In the standing committee report, I'd like to note that we're requesting an effective date of 01/01/2027. Questions or concerns members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2667 SD one HD one with amendments. Representatives Filati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2851 Senate draft one, house draft one related to deaf individuals. On this matter, I'd like to put in a defective effective date, January 1or 07/01/3000. And note in the standing committee report the request that the effective date be 01/01/2028. We'll work this out in conference, but that's my recommendation.

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

Voting on SB 2851 SD one HD one with amendments, representative Filati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2521 Senate draft one, house draft one relating to emergency services. Again, I wanna make some clarifying amendments to this, to the definition of authorized emergency vehicle. I I think I want to delete the a cross reference that is made there to section 291-31.5. I think that cross reference needs to be deleted.

And I also wanna make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. With those changes, I'd like to move it out with the house draft two. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SD 2521 SD one HD one with amendments. Representatives, the lobby and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting done? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate bill 2466 house draft one relating to chief elections officer. On this one, I'm recommending that to avoid confusion that we just say subsection g, the chief election officer may only be terminated for cause. The Elections Commission shall provide written notification of any removal and state the reason for the removal. So the election commission really is the one in charge.

But I wanna make sure that that's the case. So we're actually removing the words isn't at will employee. So it will read, the chief election officer may only be terminated for cause. The Elections Commission shall provide written notification of any removal and state the reason for the removal. So my my intention here is really is to strengthen the Elections Commission and give them guidance.

That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns measures? Madam Chair.

Yes. You know, I think it's it's it's very problematic that the the term cause is not defined in this measure. And again, I think the current law and the current way of removing the chief elections officers suffices in that the the the elections commission can do it as they wish. It is a non equally bipartisan body. And if they have the votes, they have the votes.

I know it's been quite controversial lately at those meetings, but it is their prerogative to hire and fire. I don't think that this bill is needed, so no vote. Okay.

Understood. Understood. Other comments or concerns?

Sure. I would echo representative Garcia's statement, and I will be voting for it.

Understood. Understood. Any other comments or concerns?

Yeah. Chair.

Yes. I

yeah. The the definition of cause is is problematic for me or lack lack of, actually, problematic. And there is an argument that this would make it harder to remove a chief elections officer who may be underperforming or violating laws, and there already has been an audit being sought to to seek such violations. And it's still since Ithink 02/2004, some date like that. So it's ongoing, and it hasn't rectified itself.

And hopefully, yeah, there can be more definitive ways of removing a person that is in violation or underperforming. So at this time, I'm not in support. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you very much. Appreciate understanding that. Other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2466 HD one with amendments. Representatives Filati and Sayama are excused. No votes for representatives Garcia, Shimizu, Cochran. Are there any additional no votes? Any with reservations?

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Senate bill 2140 Senate draft one, house draft one related to county labor standards. On this measure. I would like to recommend that we make technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. And that's it.

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

Voting on SB 2140 SD one HD one with amendments. Representatives Filati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? No. No for representative Shimizu.

Any with reservations. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 2245 house draft one relating to revolving door restrictions for state employees. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2,245 HD one as is. Representatives Filati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations?

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate bill 2246 relating to financial disclosures. On this measure, I would like to recommend we adopt the amendments recommended by the ethics commission in their testimony. Any questions or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2246 SD 1 HD1 with amendments. Representatives Filati and Sayama are accused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate bill 3055 Senate draft two, House draft one relating to false impersonation of union representatives. I recommend we move this out as is. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on sb 3055 SD 2 HD 1 as is representatives, Filati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Reservations. Reservation.

Reservation for representatives Garcia and Cochran. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 2519 House draft one, relating to law enforcement. I'd like to move this out as is. Questions or concerns, members? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2519 HD 1 as is. Representatives Galati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is stopped.

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 2256. On this measure, I would like to move it out as is, and it has on it the effective date upon approval. We're gonna leave that in there. So it's all clean. We and I recommend we move it out as is. Questions or concerns, members?

Sure. Actually, a comment?

Yes.

I just wanna appreciate and thank mister Bolin for coming and sharing, and thank you for adding in Melly Watanuki and my uncle John Arruda's testimony here. I just want to give a shout out. Uncle John Arruda will make 103 on April 12. So yay. Hallelujah.

Now to uncle, but, thank you and appreciate, you paying attention and coming to testify. Thank you.

And thank you, rep Cochran, for that reminder. I'd like to include in the standing committee report referencing those two specific individuals Yeah. As was recommended.

Melly Watanuki is 91, and uncle John Arruda currently is a 102.

Soon to

So I'd like to

be 103.

I'd like to make sure we include their names in the standing committee report out of respect

For them. So thank you. Thanks for that reminder, Rick Cochran. Any other comments or concerns? If not, vice chair for the vote, SB 2,256 as is.

Thank you.

Voting on SB 2256 as is. Representatives Alati and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The last measure we had deferred from a previous hearing, way back March 18. Senate bill 2731 Senate draft one related to sentencing. On this measure, I would recommend we move it out with a defective effective date, 07/01/3000, and that we would adopt the amendments from the office of public defender removing the exclusion for, quote, crimes of violence so that the 364 day cap applies uniformly to all misdemeanors. So that's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, members?

Chair

Yes. Rep Shimizu.

I understand the intent of this bill. I I I'm not sure about the ramifications of the current issue. I I'm noting that there's no testimony from the attorney general, judiciary, or or any prosecuting attorney. So with those concerns, I I will be voting. Okay.

And chair

Yes, rep cochrane.

With, reservations just due to the unknowns as mister Shimizu had mentioned.

Understood. Other comments? If not, vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2731 SD1 with amendments. Representative Pilati and Sayama are excused a no vote for representative Shimizu. Are there any additional no votes? No representative Garcia. With reservations for representative Cochran any additional reservations?

Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. There being no further business before us today, we are adjourned.