Requesting Each State Agency To Provide The Affected Person With Written Notice Of Certain Information Before Taking Any Final Administrative Action That Materially And Adversely Affects A Protected Liberty Or Property Interest.
SR114 is a Senate Resolution requesting that Hawaii state agencies improve procedural due process before taking final administrative actions that materially and adversely affect a person’s protected liberty or property interests. It asks agencies to provide written notice describing the proposed action, the factual basis, the legal authority relied on, and the person’s rights and deadlines for requesting a contested case hearing or administrative appeal. The resolution also encourages agencies, when a timely hearing is requested, to delay implementation of the adverse action until the hearing is complete unless immediate action is needed to prevent imminent harm to public health, safety, or the environment.
The resolution further urges agencies to maintain a functional separation between investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions, to use their operating budgets rather than the general fund to pay costs arising from due process violations when permitted by law, and to report those costs and corrective measures in annual budget submissions. It also requests annual reporting to the Legislature on contested case hearings, appeals, outcomes, and timing, and encourages public posting of those reports. In addition, it urges agencies not to retaliate against employees who report suspected due process violations or chapter 91 violations.
SR114 does not amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes directly; instead, it is a nonbinding Senate Resolution that requests and urges state agencies to adopt or strengthen notice, hearing, reporting, budgeting, and anti-retaliation practices. Its practical effect would be to influence agency procedures under constitutional due process principles and chapter 91 administrative procedure requirements, especially in high-impact areas such as licensing, benefits, land use, education, corrections, taxation, and environmental permitting. If followed, the resolution could shift some financial accountability for due process violations from the state’s general fund to the responsible agency’s operating budget and increase transparency through annual reporting.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability in state administration. The resolution frames the issue as a recurring problem across multiple departments and presents the requested reforms as necessary safeguards for affected persons and for public confidence in government decision-making. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support from hearings or floor action beyond the resolution’s affirmative tone.
The main points of contention implied by the resolution are not between named legislators in the available record, but between affected individuals and state agencies over due process practices. The resolution highlights concerns about inadequate notice, denial of contested case hearings, lack of impartial adjudication, and agencies implementing adverse actions before appeals are resolved. It also identifies fiscal accountability as a disputed issue, urging agencies—not the general fund—to bear the costs of procedural due process violations, which could be controversial for departments with limited budgets. Another potential tension is the recommendation to delay final adverse action pending hearings, which agencies may view as constraining enforcement or emergency response authority.