Video & Transcript Research : 'bargaining unit 1'

Page 8 of 500
HI
Transcript Highlights:
  • I don't want to speak for those bargaining units, and we're advocating for bargaining unit five members
  • We're the different bargaining units.
  • >> speak for the other bargaining units. >> speak for the other bargaining units.
  • > unit<00:13:27.120> five advocating for bargaining unit five advocating for bargaining
  • > did course bargaining unit five members did course bargaining unit five members did not.<00:14:
Bills: HB1890, HB1888, HB1676
Summary: The committees heard three measures, beginning with HB 1890 HD3, which would provide automatic step increases and a COVID-era retention bonus for teachers. Supporters included HSTA, the Democratic Party’s Education Caucus, and a student who said higher pay and predictable salary growth would help retain teachers in Hawaii. The Department of Education supported the intent but asked that the bill be expanded to cover all department employees. The Attorney General’s office said the draft needed clarification to avoid conflict with Chapter 89 and to make clear any funding was subject to legislative appropriation. The Office of the Public Defender and B&F testified in opposition, and committee members questioned whether the step increases were already in the current contract and whether the bill was needed. HSTA said the current contract includes automatic step increases subject to funding, but argued the bill was still needed because funding is not guaranteed and the measure would codify the policy. HSTA also said the COVID bonus would apply only to active teachers who worked during the pandemic and estimated the total cost at roughly $150 million to $200 million over four years. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1888 HD3, which would require DOE and charter schools to report harassment incidents and strengthen penalties for harassment of educational workers from a petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor. DOE supported the bill and suggested narrowing language about assisting workers with temporary restraining orders, saying that function would be better handled through the Attorney General’s pilot program. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing the harassment language was overly broad, vague, and potentially unconstitutional, and that existing assault and terroristic threatening statutes already protect educational workers. HSTA, the State Commission on the Status of Women, and several individual testifiers supported the measure, describing increased intimidation and harassment of teachers and other school staff, especially since COVID. The Special Education Advisory Council opposed the bill’s language on “disrupting and interfering” with school functions, saying it could chill parents of students with IEPs from advocating for their children. Testimony was split, with the chair noting 20 in support and 16 in opposition in the portion shown. A final witness, Michelle Pestana, testified in opposition based on her family’s experience with special education services, describing alleged seclusion and restraint of her daughter and expressing concern that DOE testimony in prior hearings had targeted special education parents. Her remarks were cut off as time expired. The transcript ends before any committee action or vote on HB 1888 was taken.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • Would that be would And about 312 units.
  • Units. Okay. So, we know what that is.
  • This is one for all those units.
  • So that's my calculation: $297,000 per unit. That's my calculation: $297,000 per unit.
  • In developer is developing the units.
Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including welcoming new committee member Senator Reginald Thomas, approving the minutes, and receiving a correspondence report on several information items. Those items included University of Kentucky research equipment funding, UK capital project funding using federal/private funds, debt issues from McGoffin County and Owen County school districts, lease modifications by the Division of Real Properties, asset preservation project revisions at Eastern Kentucky University and Northern Kentucky University, and Kentucky Communications Network Authority (KCNA) information on Kentucky Wired critical infrastructure. The main discussion focused on a dispute over the Kentucky Wired communication shelters, or “huts,” and related payments under KCNA’s agreement with Asellicom/Excel. Brad Kilby of Asellicom testified that KCNA had not paid for the huts, that Asellicom had not received the alleged $8 million or any later payment, and that Asellicom remained the legal owner. Committee members pressed him on whether payment had been received, whether anyone else might have received it, and whether the lawsuit or dispute resolution process clarified the issue. Kilby said no payment had been received and that the matter was part of ongoing litigation. KCNA Executive Director Doug Hendricks and General Counsel Adam Atkins then testified. They said a certified check for $8.5 million was mailed in July, based on the Finance and Administration Cabinet secretary’s determination that $8.5 million was due under the model procurement code, even though KCNA had initially requested about $12 million to cover a worst-case estimate. They said the contract allowed payment in full or in tranches, that the huts were completed and operational, and that KCNA had not received documentation supporting Asellicom’s higher $10.1 million claim. Members expressed frustration over the missing check and the broader implications for Kentucky Wired, and one member requested that the committee obtain all agency requests related to KCNA/Kentucky Wired since inception; the co-chairs said they would look into making that information available. No formal vote was taken on the dispute during the portion provided.