SB1637 amends the Hawaii Revised Statutes definition of “administrative act” in the law governing the Office of the Ombudsman. Under current law, the term already covers a broad range of government actions, omissions, decisions, recommendations, practices, and procedures, while excluding the preparation or presentation of legislation. This bill adds the lease of state lands to that definition, and specifically includes non-agricultural park lands under chapter 166E.
The practical effect is to expand the Ombudsman’s oversight authority so complaints or reviews involving state land leasing decisions can be treated as administrative acts subject to the office’s review process. Although the bill text expressly mentions state lands and non-agricultural park lands, the accompanying description states that the measure is intended to expand the Ombudsman’s authority to include leases of state agricultural lands as well. If enacted, the bill would affect state agencies and parties involved in leasing state lands by making those leasing actions more clearly reviewable under the Ombudsman statute.
Impact
The bill would amend section 96-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which defines key terms for the Office of the Ombudsman. By expanding “administrative act” to include leases of state lands, the measure would broaden the scope of matters the Ombudsman may examine, potentially increasing oversight of land disposition and lease administration by state entities. This could affect state departments managing public lands, lessees, and members of the public seeking review of leasing-related government actions.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcripts, votes, or recorded opposition, so there is no direct evidence of debate or divided sentiment. Based on the bill’s purpose and description, the measure appears to be framed as a straightforward oversight expansion for the Ombudsman, suggesting a generally neutral-to-supportive posture in the absence of documented controversy.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the Ombudsman’s authority over state land leases. The bill text explicitly references state lands and non-agricultural park lands, while the report description says the bill expands authority to include state agricultural land leases. That difference could raise questions about whether the measure is intended to cover all state land leases or only certain categories. Any concern would likely come from agencies or stakeholders involved in land leasing who may view expanded Ombudsman review as additional oversight or administrative burden.