STAND. COM. REP. 1415

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2003

RE: S.B. No. 1075

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

 

 

 

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Second State Legislature

Regular Session of 2003

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B. No. 1075, S.D. 1, entitled:

"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO CONTESTED CASES,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this bill is to authorize agencies to mandate parties in a contested case under the Administrative Procedures Act to participate in mediation, with costs borne by the parties unless otherwise agreed or ordered.

The Judiciary and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission submitted testimony in support of this bill. The City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting and Verizon Hawaii testified in support of this measure with amendments. Life of the Land submitted testimony in opposition to this bill. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs provided comments.

Your Committee believes that mediation may serve the needs of competing parties to a dispute. Without this measure, agencies may hesitate to refer disputes to mediation even though all parties view it as a step in the right direction. Your Committee understands, however, that the agency charged with ultimate determination on the merits of a controversy may not be in the best position to determine whether mediation would help resolve a

particular controversy. Your Committee notes that the cost of mediation may be more onerous for one party than another, and the strategic advantage more positive for one than the other.

Your Committee has amended this measure by:

(1) Allowing agencies to "encourage" rather than "require" parties to participate in mediation;

(2) Requiring the adoption of rules on to how to determine whether to encourage parties to mediate and the conditions appropriate for the mediation process;

(3) Reducing from sixty to thirty days the maximum duration of the mediation process, unless extended by the agency, to avoid unnecessary delay in contested case proceedings; and

(4) Making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for clarity and style.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 1075, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 1075, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.

 

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,

 

____________________________

ERIC G. HAMAKAWA, Chair