SB655 is a commemorative measure that designates September 2 of each year as “Richard ‘Buffalo’ Keaulana Day” in Hawaii. The bill’s findings describe Keaulana as an iconic surfer, lifesaver, and cultural figure from Makaha whose achievements in surfing, lifeguarding, and voyaging made him a widely respected community leader and a symbol of aloha.
The bill adds a new section to Chapter 8 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing the annual observance, while expressly stating that the day is not a state holiday. It takes effect upon approval and is limited to recognition and honorific purposes rather than creating any paid leave, closure requirement, or other operational mandate.
Impact
SB655 would amend Chapter 8, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by adding a named annual observance for Richard “Buffalo” Keaulana on September 2. The practical legal effect is limited: it creates an official state-recognized day of remembrance and celebration, but it does not establish a state holiday or require government offices, schools, or employers to close. The bill primarily affects state law by adding a commemorative designation to the statutory calendar of recognized days.
Sentiment
The bill appears broadly positive and celebratory in tone, with the legislative findings emphasizing Keaulana’s contributions to surfing, lifeguarding, Hawaiian cultural restoration, and community life in West Oahu. The available record shows no recorded opposition, no committee testimony, and no votes indicating controversy. The bill’s status of being re-referred to WLA and WAM suggests it remained under legislative consideration, but the text and context reflect a respectful honorary measure rather than a contested policy proposal.
Contention
There is little apparent substantive contention in the bill itself because it is a ceremonial designation. The only explicit limitation is the statement that the day is not and shall not be construed to be a state holiday, which helps avoid concerns about mandated time off or fiscal/administrative impacts. If any issue arises, it would likely be procedural or related to whether the Legislature should create another named observance, rather than disagreement over the honoree or the underlying purpose.