SB786 would require, beginning January 1, 2027, that government records subject to Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act be provided in a disability-accessible format upon request. The bill is aimed at making public records usable by people with vision, hearing, speech, and other communication disabilities, and it applies to records held by state executive agencies, the judiciary, and county governments. It also directs the governor, chief justice, and each county mayor to designate at least one “converting agency” responsible for converting records into accessible formats, with additional agencies allowed if needed to ensure timely responses.
The bill sets out a process for handling requests: the initiating agency must retrieve the record, send it to the converting agency in a clear and easily convertible format, and then provide the requester with the converted record. The converting agency must accurately complete the conversion in a timely manner, and agencies may consult with the Disability Communications Access Board. The bill also requires the Office of Information Practices, the judiciary, and counties to adopt implementing rules, regulations, or ordinances, and it extends the normal response deadline by five business days for requests requiring accessible-format conversion, except for board meeting records.
SB786 would amend Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding a new section governing disability-accessible conversion of public records. It also includes appropriations for the executive branch, judiciary, and counties to cover equipment, training, and 0.5 FTE positions for converting agencies. In practical terms, the bill would create a new administrative obligation for agencies that respond to public records requests and would likely require new workflows, staffing, and technology to comply with accessibility requirements.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of disability access and public transparency, with the measure framed as a response to gaps in current procedures and accessibility barriers. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill was deferred by the GVO committee on February 11, 2025. That deferral suggests at least some unresolved implementation or fiscal concerns, even though the bill’s stated policy goal is broadly pro-accessibility.
The main points of contention likely center on administrative burden, cost, and timing. The bill requires multiple levels of government to designate converting agencies, adopt rules, and fund equipment, training, and staffing, which may raise questions about fiscal impact and operational capacity. Another possible issue is the five-business-day extension for accessible-format requests, which balances accessibility with response time but may be viewed as either insufficient by advocates or as an added delay by transparency proponents; the exception for board meeting records also suggests a need to preserve existing public meeting timelines.
SB786 would add a new accessibility mandate to Chapter 92F, requiring public records that are otherwise open to inspection to be provided in disability-accessible formats upon request starting January 1, 2027. It would create new duties for state, judiciary, and county agencies, establish designated converting agencies, authorize consultation with the Disability Communications Access Board, and require implementing rules. The bill also appropriates state funds for staffing, equipment, and training, affecting the executive branch, judiciary, and counties.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable policy orientation because it is grounded in disability rights and equal access to government information. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials makes it difficult to identify specific public arguments against it, but the committee deferral indicates that lawmakers may have had concerns about implementation details, fiscal costs, or administrative readiness. Overall, the measure reads as an accessibility and transparency bill with practical concerns likely driving legislative caution.
Likely areas of contention include the cost of creating and staffing converting agencies, the need for new equipment and training, and whether agencies can meet the new obligations in a timely manner. Some may also question the five-business-day extension for accessible-format requests and how it interacts with public records deadlines, especially for non-board-meeting records. The requirement that multiple branches and counties adopt rules and designate agencies could also raise coordination concerns across government units.