(1) Department of the attorney general;

(2) Department of health;

(3) Department of human services;

(4) Department of commerce and consumer affairs;

(5) Department of public safety;

(6) Department of education;

(7) Judiciary;

(8) Hawaii labor relations board;

(9) Law enforcement agencies;

(10) Independent or private school association;

(11) Condominium associations;

(12) Private detective and security guard agencies;

(13) Groups or individuals that provide care for children, the elderly and persons in need of support;

(14) The Hawaii criminal justice data center;

(15) The civil rights commission;

(16) The civil service commission;

(17) County licensing boards;

(18) Public employee unions; and

(19) Public and private employers.

(1) Consistent and uniform terminology in laws relating to criminal history record checks, including laws governing access and use of criminal history record information.

(2) The scope of the "criminal history record checks" conducted by the Hawaii criminal justice data center should be clarified. Where a statute indicates a "fingerprint analysis and name inquiry" of "state criminal history record files", are name checks only sufficient?

(3) All statutorily authorized or required criminal history record checks should be reviewed, and amended or repealed to conform to existing law, including standard definitions and uniform procedures to be adopted.

Should statutes that authorize a check of Hawaii conviction data only to determine employment suitability be repealed to eliminate unnecessary laws and to promote clarity and uniformity since Hawaii law currently provides for unrestricted access and limited consideration of criminal convictions by employers?

(4) Should Hawaii employment practices law with respect to the use of criminal history record information also apply to licensing decisions? If there should be any differences, what should those differences be?

(5) Are there any guidelines to determine when a conviction is "rationally related" to the job? If so, what are they?

(6) When statutory authorization, or a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) requirement, or both, allows consideration of arrest and court record:

(7) Does a criminal history record check that is authorized, but not required, by statute constitute a BFOQ exception that allows consideration of arrest and court record?

(8) Should Hawaii employment practices law be amended to expressly authorize consideration of both conviction and nonconviction data when an employer is statutorily authorized to conduct a criminal history record check of an individual's criminal history record information (which includes both conviction data and nonconviction data) to determine employment suitability? If so, what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on an employer's consideration of criminal history record information?

(9) Should section 378-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, be amended to repeal paragraph (8) because it is unnecessary, duplicative, and potentially confusing?

Section 378-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, establishes "Exceptions", stating that nothing in chapter 378, part I, Hawaii Revised Statutes, "Discriminatory Practices", shall be deemed to prohibit or prevent public or private schools from considering criminal convictions in determining suitability for employment in close proximity to children. Sections 846-43 and 846-44, Hawaii Revised Statutes, independently authorize public and private schools to conduct criminal history record checks for employment screening and section 378-2.5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, allows consideration of convictions. Other statutes that authorize other agencies to conduct employment criminal history record checks are not included as "exceptions" in section 378-3. To include some but not all, statutorily authorized criminal checks in section 378-3 appears to be both unnecessary and confusing.

(10) Although aggrieved civil service applicants may appeal to the civil service commission, the rights of a similarly aggrieved applicant for a state job that is not civil service are unclear. Should the civil rights commission investigate complaints (by persons other than those applying for state or county civil service jobs) related to the prohibitions in section 831-3.1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, on the State's use of certain criminal records in state employment decisions? If not the civil rights commission, then who?

(11) Similarly, what remedies are (or should be) available for license applicants who believe their license was denied or revoked based on the State's use of nonconviction or conviction data?

(12) Since the unlimited availability of Hawaii conviction data allows public access to convictions regardless of age, does this conflict with an employer's ability to consider only those rationally related convictions less than ten years old? If so, how should the conflict be reconciled?

(13) Should statutorily authorized criminal history record checks direct the data center to disseminate to government agencies only criminal history record information, including conviction and nonconviction data, that is less than ten years old, or to check only criminal history record information less than ten years old if the data center is "conducting" the criminal history record check for authorized requestors?

(14) Should Hawaii conviction data be made available to the public online, similar to the sex offender registry?

(15) Does the National Child Protection Act, as amended by the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998, authorize a qualified entity to request a national criminal history record check for both employment and licensing purposes, in the absence of an authorizing statute?

(16) Does the prohibition in 28 CFR section 20.21(b) continue to restrict states that received federal funding in connection with the collection, storage, dissemination of criminal history record information in the dissemination of state nonconviction data?

(17) Should criminal history record information be purged when it "no longer serves a public purpose"?

(18) Whether a conviction may be "annulled or expunged" and whether such an expunged conviction is removed from the conviction database should be clarified.

Section 831-3.1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, prohibits use, distribution, or dissemination of "annulled or expunged convictions" in state employment and licensing matters. Although the data center's website states that an arrest record may be expunged when the individual is not convicted and that the expunged arrest record is not available to the general public, this provides little guidance because arrest records where there was no subsequent conviction are never available to the general public, whether expunged or not.

(19) Consider repeal of section 831-3.1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which restricts the State's use, distribution, and dissemination of certain criminal records in employment and licensing decisions to eliminate redundant, unnecessary, duplicative, or conflicting laws.

The State is subject to Hawaii law governing the dissemination and use of criminal history record information in employment decisions in the same manner as any other employer.

Clarification of the State's authority to access and use of criminal history record information for licensing purposes is recommended. Limitations identical to those limiting access and use in employment matters are suggested.

(20) If section 831-3.1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is retained, clarification of "noncriminal standards such as good moral character, temperate habits, habitual intemperate use of intoxicants, trustworthiness, and the like" is recommended.

Various state departments are required to develop standards, which include criminal history record checks, to assure the "reputable and responsible character" of certain license or employment applicants. The mandatory use of criminal history record checks to assure "reputable and responsible character" in one statute and the prohibition against consideration of convictions when considering "good moral character" should be clarified and distinguished.

(21) Whether an exemption for fees provided by the data center for criminal history record checks is appropriate for any additional categories or circumstances, such as adult foster care homes.

(22) Whether the State should designate an additional state agency as an "authorized agency" through which a qualified entity may request a national criminal history record check under the National Child Protection Act.

(23) Should Hawaii dissemination law be amended to authorize the data center to redisseminate FBI records to a government agency requesting a national criminal history check as an "qualified entity" under the Act where the government agency lacks statutory authorization.