SB2311 amends Hawaii law governing claims for legislative relief against the State. It keeps the existing requirement that claims for refunds, reimbursements, or other payments sought from the Legislature be filed with the Attorney General within six years after the claim matures, and it reinforces that claims outside the applicable time limits in section 40-68 may not be presented. The bill also requires the Attorney General to continue reviewing claims, obtaining agency input, and reporting recommendations to the Legislature in bill form, while adding a new requirement that the Attorney General consult with the Governor before entering into settlement agreements over $75,000 that still require legislative approval.
The bill expands reporting obligations for the Attorney General. It changes the pre-session report deadline from 20 days to 40 days before each regular session and requires more detailed information for each settled claim, including the conduct that led to the claim, recommended preventive actions, implementation timelines, agency responses, and any remedial measures if corrective action is not taken. It also requires a separate confidential report every five years, beginning before the 2027 regular session, on whether agencies experienced further incidents after recommended fixes were implemented and why those fixes were insufficient. The bill specifies that these reports are confidential and privileged communications to the Legislature.
In practical terms, the bill affects the claims process for state payments and the Attorney General’s oversight role, while leaving the Legislature as the body that ultimately considers claims for legislative relief. It also limits stale claims and strengthens the information available to lawmakers when evaluating settlements, agency failures, and possible future liability. Agencies and the Comptroller remain part of the investigative and reporting process, and the Governor gains a consultation role for larger settlements subject to legislative approval.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is favorable. SB2311 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, 5-0, with amendments, and was reported out and passed second reading as amended before referral to Ways and Means. That voting pattern suggests broad support for the bill’s transparency and claims-management provisions.
No major opposition is reflected in the available record, but the bill’s requirements could raise concerns for agencies and the Attorney General’s office because of the added reporting burden, the expanded detail required in confidential reports, and the new consultation requirement for larger settlements. The main policy tension appears to be between improving oversight and accountability on one hand, and increasing administrative obligations and confidentiality-sensitive reporting on the other.
SB2311 amends sections 37-77 and 37-77.5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It tightens the claims-for-legislative-relief process by barring claims that exceed the applicable statutory time limits and by requiring the Attorney General to provide more detailed, confidential reporting to legislative leaders before each session and every five years thereafter. It also adds a Governor-consultation requirement for settlement agreements over $75,000 that need legislative approval. The bill primarily affects the Attorney General, state agencies, the Comptroller, and claimants seeking payment from the State through legislative relief.
The available legislative history indicates generally positive sentiment toward the bill. It was reported out of Senate Judiciary with a 5-0 vote and advanced as amended, which suggests consensus around the need for more structured oversight of claims against the State. The referral to Ways and Means indicates the bill was still moving through the process, but no recorded dissent appears in the provided materials.
The main points of contention are likely procedural and administrative rather than ideological. The bill increases the Attorney General’s reporting duties, requires more detailed analysis of settled claims, and adds a recurring five-year review of whether corrective actions actually prevented future incidents. Agencies may view these requirements as burdensome, while lawmakers may see them as necessary for accountability and prevention. The new requirement that the Attorney General consult with the Governor before settling larger claims subject to legislative approval could also be a point of concern because it adds another layer of executive review to the settlement process.