SB436 amends Hawaii law governing the State Fire Marshal by adding a term limit to the office. Under the bill, the State Fire Marshal continues to be appointed by the State Fire Council for a five-year term, but no individual may serve more than three terms. The bill also preserves existing provisions that exempt the appointment from chapters 76 and 89 and from Senate advice and consent, and it keeps the authority for the fire council to fill vacancies and for the fire marshal to hire staff as needed.
The measure is narrowly focused on the structure and tenure of the State Fire Marshal position within the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. It does not change the core duties of the office, but it does alter the maximum length of service for the officeholder and therefore affects succession planning and appointment practices for the State Fire Council.
Impact
SB436 would amend section 132-16.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by imposing a three-term cap on service as State Fire Marshal. This changes state law governing the office’s appointment and tenure while leaving the office’s placement in the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and the appointment process otherwise intact. The bill affects the State Fire Council, the State Fire Marshal, and any future appointees to the position, but it does not create new regulatory powers or alter fire safety enforcement statutes beyond the office’s leadership structure.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate Labor and Technology Committee 3-0 with amendments and later passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee 13-0 unamended. No committee transcripts were provided, and there is no recorded opposition in the materials supplied. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable and noncontroversial, with lawmakers supporting a limit on how long one person may hold the office.
Contention
The only notable point of potential contention is the policy choice to limit the State Fire Marshal to three terms, which could be viewed as either promoting leadership turnover or unnecessarily restricting continuity and institutional experience. However, the bill’s unanimous committee votes indicate that any disagreement was minimal or not publicly reflected in the available record. No other substantive disputes appear in the provided materials.