Senate Standing Committee on Education

Aloha and good afternoon. The committee hearing for the Senate Committee on Education come to order. We are on our joint committee, 01:00 agenda, with the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs. And to my left, chair from the Big Island, Senator Richards. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you, chair.

This is Monday, April 20th. We're in new room, 225, and this hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. And if we must end this hearing due to technical issues, the committee will convene on Wednesday, April 22nd in Room 225, and a public notice will be posted on the Hawaii legislative website. First item on the agenda is House Concurrent Resolution 122, and this is requesting the University of Hawaii to allow Olelo Hawaii Pathway under the Ni'ihau dialect.

And for testimony, we have Debora Hallett from—Halbert—from the University of Hawaii.

Thank you. I know we've done this before with a Senate measure, and we have—are looking to amend it the same way we did in the Senate version. That sounds good.

I'll stand on my testimony, and we're in support of the resolution with comments.

Okay.

Any questions?

Thank you very much. Julia Kahone in support, and no one else would testify. Anyone else wishing to testify? I see not.

Members, I have spoke to the author of this resolution from the House, and he agrees that the amendments we made in the Senate version will be made to this one as well. So, with that, any questions? No questions? Any discussion, members? If not, the chair recommends that we, we amend this resolution to also add technical, non-substantive amendments for clarity and that we make the same amendments with the Senate version to have it to be a—what's the word?

Yeah.

Yeah. Michael credential. Duh. Okay. No discussion.

Chair, Vice Chair, do we have—oh, we do. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Quorum?

Wait do we have quorum?

Yeah. We do.

[Roll Call]

With amendments.

With amendments?

With amendments, yes. As adjudicated.

[Roll Call]

And for the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, recommendation is the same, passing with amendments. Vice chair for the vote, chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We're adjourning the joint here.

I'd like to call to order the Committee on Education. I am not going to read the script. You all hear and know the script by heart.

And so, with that, we are going to start off with House Concurrent Resolution 181, House Draft 1. This is affirming the legislative intent of Section 302A-116. Hawaii Revised Statues is to authorize the Department of Education to create a subset—substantively temporary positions only.

And I just wanna say that the proposed draft was posted, and we did get the house author of the measure understanding that we were going to use this bill as a vehicle because the Senate measure did pass over. And because of that and the only reason that that we're using this resolution.

So it's not against that original version of the measure. And so with that, we'll start off with superintendent Keith Hayashi. Welcome.

Thank you. Hello, chair Kim, members of the committee. Keith Ayashi, superintendent testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. The Department Department stands on its written testimony, which provides comments on this measure. The department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on HCR 11181 proposed SD one.

The proposed SD one seeks to affirm the legislative intent of Section three zero two a dash one one one six, Hawaii revised statutes, authorize the department to create temporary positions in consultation with our AG. We are following the statutory requirements.

K.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Next person testifying is Andrea Diaz Machado in support. Aloha.

Aloha. I chair and vice chair and members of the committee on education. Chair Kim, I just heard you say that the reason for you using this as a vehicle is because it also the concurrent Senate resolution has passed. So, I don't think there's a need for me to provide testimony on this. So I'm a hallow for your time.

Well, thank you. Appreciate your support of the original measure that we supported. Thank you. Charmaine Doran in support. Susan.

She's here. Susan Piccola Davis.

Thank you so much for your opening sentences because I'm learning more as I come here more. So some of my testimony was already submitted before I got educated.

I just forgot it.

So I do support this bill with comments and my thought processes, but I don't know if this is appropriate, is that if I read three zero two a one one sixteen, I would add, if you could, authority create temporary positions. The department may create temporary positions as it deems necessary provided that the temporary positions meet the following criteria. One stays the same.

Two, I rewrote it as the term of each position shall shall not exceed one year and refrain from renewing those positions in one year increments. Thank you very much.

Okay. Very good. Good suggestions. Thank you. See, we have one, two, three, four others.

My brother's in support. And anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure hearing that members are open to questions. Asking superintendent, if you can come up. So my understanding is the AG has said that you could renew the positions each year? Or is that

We we are following the statutory requirements. The positions the positions that at the end of it are temporary. At the end of every year, there is we we evaluate the positions themselves and then deem if we need to establish the positions again. And so we that goes to our process that we utilize is should that as that need happens, and it does for for these positions, we do propose that through the board of education, the through our approved board budget.

Then it goes on to the gov which it was approved.

Then it goes on to the governor's governor's office, which then that was also approved and it's forwarded to the legislature for for funding of those positions. And we have submitted those that request utilizing that process, I believe, since twenty twenty two, twenty three school year.

Okay. So you're saying that you're affirming the legislative intent of this section, right, in your testimony? Or maybe that's not your exact words. That's your exact words. Proposes seeks to affirm the legislative intent.

Okay.

That we are following that we are following the temporary position. And it is those positions are temporary. And then they are reevaluate at the end of every year. And so we are following the procedure under the statute.

Okay. But it does say it shall not exceed one year. And the legislative intent and it's not you know, you don't normally just take a legislative intent by one statute. You look at the overall framework of the budget intentions of the budget. And the intentions of the budget overall legislative budget is that you and every agency has to get approval for positions.

And the exception lies here and with this measure that allows you, in certain circumstances, to be able to create these temporary positions that is only good for one year. Now if, in fact, you are interpreting it as and whether the AG is interpreting it and so there's a difference in legal interpretation, that that means that as long as it's one year, you can reevaluate and do another year, then it circumvents the intention of the fact that you need to have all of your positions.

Otherwise, what stops you from of course, you gotta get approval, but creating, you know, hundreds of position and calling it temporary, and then every year reevaluating, and then get it again. That way, you don't need to come through the budget process, which is clearly not the intent of the overall budgetary legislative process. Would you agree?

Well well, since as I shared, we have consulted with our attorney general and have they have advised us that our AIGA has advised us that we are following the statutory requirements under this statute. As it's as the temp as the position is temporary for one year, and then it is reevaluate at the end of every year, goes through the board approved process, onto the governor, and then to the legislature for funding.

And we have requested the position to be funded by the legislature since 2022 for the last four years, I believe.

And so the fact that the legislature have not funded it, meaning that we don't agree and that intent and, of course, we're the ones that write this, right, the legislature. And so now that you know clearly the intent of the legislature is for these positions not to be renewed every year.

And so, basically, you're forcing us to have to re re amend this measure, but knowing that that is the intent and that circumvents the legislative process, that that measure could be taken away completely as the next go around.

Senator, the legislature did approve, though, the private secretary for these positions.

Right. And so we can undo that, which is certainly being discussed because there should never be permanent positions for temporary positions. So I guess if there's not cooperation, then the alternative would be for us to introduce a measure next session and to do away with this ability to create a create positions temporarily if, in fact, you're going to make it permanent in the sense that you will renew it over and over again, which means it's a convinced them.

It it's not it is not a Senator after after. It's not a automatic year over year, meaning over year.

But you're gonna review it?

It is a review. And based on the, the need for the position, we we will the department determines whether we need to have that position reestablished. And then from there, we go to the process to go through the board and so forth.

But, again, I don't believe this says to reestablish. This is the term of each position shall not exceed one year. So the term of that position so maybe if you create a whole different position, you would be able to do another one year. But to get the same position again and to do it another year, again, it circumvents the budgetary process. Otherwise, all of your positions, you would be able to do this.

And that is certainly clearly not the intent. And this is something that the courts have looked at, and the courts have said that, you know, you don't just take the law by itself. You take the overall intent of what the legislative process and the budgetary process is. And it's certainly not to give you carte blanche to be able to create new positions and then to be able to renew that position no matter what the process you go through.

Because the process is to go up to the legislature.

We did not give the process to the board of education. Questions?

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. I think that if this bill wasn't introduced and passed within the maybe most recent years, then we would be subject to what the intent is. But this was only passed in 2024.

So when we're talking about the intent, you're talking to the people that intended on passing this bill for a reason, and the intention is very clear that it was temporary. The intention was very clear that it was only to last up until one year. DOE has authority to create temporary positions with a term not to exceed one year. So I'm concerned about the AG's interpretation because this isn't a bill that passed a hundred years ago.

This was only a couple years ago by the people that are sitting in this room that are telling you that was not their intent.

Furthermore, I think that to just kind of shorten up this confusion, I mean, I think we just need to amend the bill because it's very obvious that we have to pass bills to tell you exactly word by word, line by line, what exactly the department's roles and responsibilities are.

So now you're creating more work for us that we have to go back and we have to amend the bill and just keep it very, very concise that there is no renewing, that anybody who's reading this says DOE has authority to create temporary positions with a term not to exceed one year. That seems very clear to me, but it's creating more work on our end. Now we have to go back, amend the bill to make sure that it's very clear.

So I I I I find this to be a lengthy conversation where anybody reading this could see the intent, but you're talking to the people who supported this with the intent that it was gonna not exceed one year.

So I just wanted to make that comment. It it it seems that we're having to go back to legislation and amend bills so that we can tell them exactly how to do their job, the time that they have to do their job, when it ends, when it starts, check off all the boxes. So more work for us. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. You know, we try to be flexibility in these laws so that you guys can operate. But when you come down to this kind of situation, now you force us to be very prescriptive and not give you any room to wiggle. And so you are exactly going against what it is that the department or the legislative entity that gives you your budget, that you're going against what it is we're telling you the intent is, which is troubling. Any other questions?

Members' questions? If not, thank you. Okay. Moving on. We are on house concurrent Resolution 42 urging the Department of Education to meet the criteria necessary to officially recognize cheerleading as a title sport in Hawaii.

And we have, I guess he just walked out, Kitayashi, unless he doesn't support cheerleading. And then we have Lassmin Chaney, in support. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Hearing none. Members, any questions of no one that's here?

I see none. With that, we will, move on to the next item. We have HCR 53 requesting University of Hawaii Board of Regents to conduct a system wide associate degree completion audit. And that measure, I don't know that's anybody here at test raised testimony, but since we have new age here, no testimony. Okay.

Members, seeing that we have no one here, we're gonna move move on to HCR 110. And this is requesting the University of Hawaii Board of Regents to review and refine operational institutions to ensure that each campus fulfills a distinct and complementary role in serving students in the state. And HCR 110, we have no testifiers on this measure either. Hearing that no one else wants to testify, we'll move on.

HCR 111, requesting the board of regents to review and clarify the roles and responsibilities and functions of the university of Hawaii system in relation to responsibilities of individual campuses.

Again, no one is to test them- testify. Finally, HCR 118, HD 1, urging Department of Education to strengthen menstrual health education initiatives to adopt a comprehensive menstrual cycle curriculum. And this measure was passed by the Senate. We passed it over to the House. The House asked if we would hear their measure as well.

And so as a cooperative colleague, I am complying. So I will ask our testifiers to please you have one minute and we will start off with, Lassmin Cheney. Not here. Leila Gonzalez in support. Nikki Ann Yee.

Nikki, is that you?

Yes. Aloha, chair and members of the committee. Nice to see you. My name is Nikki Ann Yee, and I'm cofounder of Ma'i Movement Hawaii. I stand on my written testimony in strong support.

I wanna start by recognizing the young people that brought us here today, Joelle and Leila. Unfortunately, they can't make it because they're in class, but this measure really reflects what students, they themselves are asking for, comprehensive and standardized mental health education. And I appreciate your committee's commitment and also acknowledging that you see the inconsistency, and you recognize that our keiki are filling that gap every day. So thank you so much for all of your support. The products are in the school.

The infrastructure is there, and this reso and the one that you pass over to the house is making sure that the knowledge follows. So mahalo for your support and your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? I don't see or hear anyone. Members, we are in decision making. Be ready for that.

So with house Concurrent Resolution one eight one, this is affirming the section two o three zero two a dash one one six. The recommendation is to adopt the proposed SD one and the rest of it should be fine. Any comments? Any discussion on this measure? Hearing none, chair votes aye.

Members, HCR 181 for chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair votes aye, vice chair's excused. Senator Fukunaga's excused. I vote aye. Senator DeCorte? Aye. Chair.

Senator, is it not amended then? Sure. So is it not amended to adopt the post post SD one?

SD one? Oh, so we're passing the amendment of the SD one. It or the

Yeah. We are amending the HCR 181, h d one two eight, the proposed SD one that was posted. Okay. So it becomes an SD one. K. My vote is still aye.

Alright. Same vote. Yeah. Alright. Adopted.

Thank you. ACR 42, this is urging department to meet criteria necessary to officially recognize cheerleading as a sport. We did pass this one over as well. Recommendation is to pass as yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Technical and non substantive amendments. So with an SD one.

Members, HCR 42. Chairs, renditions passed with amendments. Noting the excuse of of Senator Kidani and Fukunaga for this measure and all others. Any other any others voting with reservations or no? The others voting our recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. For HCR 53, this is urging the University of Hawaii Board of Regents to conduct a system wide associate degree completion audit. Recommendation is to amend with technical and non substantive amendments for clarity and consistency. Chair votes aye.

Members, HCR 53. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Any reservations are no. With all others voting, I recommend is adopted.

K. HCR 110. This is for the Board of Regents to refine the operational missions of Hawaii's four year campuses. Recommendation is to pass as is. No discussion.

Members, HR 110, Chair's recommendation is to pass an amendment. Any members waiting with reservations or no's? With all eyes voting aye, recommendations adopted.

Chair votes aye.

Okay. And HCR 111, similar to the one above, except this one, is looking at the responsibilities of each individual campuses. Recommendation is to pass as is.

Members, HCR 111. Chairs, we're gonna just pass unamended. Any members voting with reservations are no. Without others voting, aye. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. And HCR 118 is to pass pass as is? Or how about we do this? We we make any any amendments that was made in the measure that went over in the Senate draft, which I can't recall what it might be, but I'm sure we have that on record. With that, can I do that?

You can

do whatever you want.

Okay. So is this gonna be an SDOI or is this gonna be how about we we do the technical and non substantive amendments, and then any changes that was made in the version that went over be included.

Yeah. Okay.

That's good. Okay. Chair votes aye.

Members, eight zero one one eight. Chair is recommendation to pass with amendments. Chair, any members voting with reservations are no. Without others voting, I recommendations adopted.

And we are done.