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.
SCR122 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution requesting that Hawaii state agencies strengthen procedural due process protections 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 that clearly explains the proposed action, the factual basis for it, the legal authority relied upon, and the person’s right to request a contested case hearing or administrative appeal, including the applicable deadlines and procedures.
The resolution also encourages agencies to delay implementing adverse action when a timely contested case hearing is requested, unless immediate action is needed to prevent imminent harm to public health, safety, or the environment. In addition, it urges agencies to maintain separation between investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory functions where practicable, to report procedural due process violations and related costs in annual budget submissions, to support whistleblower protections for employees reporting due process concerns, and to provide annual reporting to the Legislature on hearings, appeals, outcomes, and reversals.
SCR122 does not directly amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes; as a concurrent resolution, it expresses legislative intent and requests administrative changes rather than creating binding statutory requirements. Its practical effect would be to influence agency procedures across a wide range of state departments, including those handling licensing, benefits, land use, education, labor, health, corrections, taxation, and environmental matters, by standardizing notice and reporting practices and encouraging agencies to internalize the fiscal consequences of due process violations.
The resolution appears broadly supportive of stronger due process protections and greater transparency in agency decision-making. The bill text frames the issue as a recurring statewide problem and emphasizes accountability, fairness, and fiscal responsibility. No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment activity in the available context.
The main points of contention suggested by the resolution itself are institutional and fiscal rather than partisan: whether agencies should be required or merely encouraged to delay adverse action pending hearings, how far separation of functions should go within agencies, and whether financial liability for due process violations should be charged to an agency’s operating budget instead of the general fund. The resolution also implies possible tension over whistleblower protections and the administrative burden of expanded reporting, but no specific objections from legislators or stakeholders are included in the provided record.