STATE OF HAWAII
BOARD OF EDUCATION
FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Queen Liliuokalani Building
1390 Miller Street, Room 404
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Kenneth Uemura, Committee Chairperson
Brian De Lima, Esq.
Bruce Voss, Esq.
Nolan Kawano, Committee Vice Chairperson
Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent
Amy Kunz, Senior Assistant Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Fiscal Services
Dann Carlson, Assistant Superintendent, Office of School Facilities and Support Services
Kenneth Masden, Public Works Manager, Planning Section, Facilities Development Branch, Office of School Facilities and Support Services
Alison Kunishige, Executive Director
Kenyon Tam, Board Analyst
Regina Pascua, Board Private Secretary
Irina Dana, Secretary
I. Call to Order
The Finance and Infrastructure Committee (“Committee”) was called to order by Committee Chairperson Kenneth Uemura at 11:08 a.m.
II. *Public testimony on Finance and Infrastructure Committee (“Committee”) agenda items
Committee Chairperson Uemura called for public testimony. There was no public testimony at this time.
III. Approval of Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2018
ACTION: Motion to approve the Finance and Infrastructure Committee Meeting minutes of May 17, 2018 (Voss/De Lima). The motion carried unanimously with all members present voting aye.
IV. Discussion Items
A. Update on status of implementation of school impact fee districts
Dann Carlson, Assistant Superintendent, Office of School Facilities and Support Services, stated that since the previous Committee meeting, the Department of Education (“Department”) had a productive meeting with the City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting (“DPP”). He highlighted that the Department reached an agreement to move forward with its implementation of school impact fee districts. Carlson detailed that the DPP needs to incorporate school impact fee districts in its programming, and the Department provided the DPP with information. He stated that the DPP would notify the Department within 30 days from when it is fully ready to implement school impact fee districts. Carlson highlighted that once this happens, the Department would release a public service announcement, a press release, and a prepared article for Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Carlson stated that the DPP and the Department should fully implement school impact fee districts in August. He noted that implementation is currently in the DPP’s hands.
Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the Department would proceed with implementation in August in the best-case scenario. Carlson confirmed that it would.
Committee Chairperson Uemura noted that at one of its meetings, the Committee asked the Department to review revenue credits. He asked if the Department had completed this study and if the Department was comfortable with its analysis and computations. Committee Chairperson Uemura asked if the Department had an update on the cost-per-student rates. He noted that cost-per-student rates are in conjunction with a revenue credit review, and the Department should complete it every three years. Carlson stated that the Department had not yet completed this and would need to look into this. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the Department still has time to complete this because it is not implementing impact fee districts until August. He asked for an update at the next Committee meeting.
B. Update on Department of Education status on Act 155 (§302A-1151.1 Pilot program for lease of public school land)
Carlson stated that in regards to Act 155, the Department does not have the capacity to complete next steps internally. He highlighted that the Department has been working with a consultant to refine its site list. He noted that the Department has received proposals for initial due diligence on seven sites and is in the process of modifying its consultant contract for additional work. It expects to send a notice to proceed on upcoming work. Carlson stated that the Department will break up next steps work into two phases. In the first phase, the Department will determine market viability, existing infrastructure, and so forth. At the end of the first phase, the Department will present its findings to the Committee for the Committee’s review and direction. He detailed that the Department will need to develop concepts for best value or use of property and clearly delineate each site for development. Carlson noted that the Department will also provide a diagram to show the extent of buildable areas. During the second phase, the Department will work with the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (“HHFDC”). Carlson detailed that the Department will engage HHFDC early to establish redevelopment plans, including potential environmental assessments, which could take 18 months for the Department to complete. He highlighted that the Department will work directly with HHFDC on these steps.
Committee Chairperson Uemura commented that the Committee approved seven sites, including two school sites and five non-school sites. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that at one of its meetings, the Committee discussed the Department’s lack of expertise to move forward but also discussed the Department leveraging developers by publishing a request for information (“RFI”). He asked if the Department has completed this. Carlson stated that it has not proceeded with this but could do so if directed by the Committee. He noted that the Department has been following the Committee’s last direction, which was to complete due diligence on its seven sites. Carlson stated that the Department has not fully vetted the RFI process with its consultant but could do so.
Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that Carlson proposed the RFI concept at a previous Committee meeting, and he agreed with the Department pursuing the RFI due to its lack of expertise and ability to review interest. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the direction from the Committee was to review the RFI process. He stated that it would be helpful to the Committee if the Department could begin this process.
Committee Chairperson Uemura asked about the work the consultant is doing for the Department. Carlson stated that the consultant is experienced and has a background in land development. He highlighted that the consultant is completing research on existing property zoning and parcel sizes. Carlson noted that the Department has employees who are knowledgeable about impact fees and land issues as they arise, but their expertise is lacking compared to the consultant’s expertise.
Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the purpose of an RFI is to ensure that the Department covers its bases without spending a lot of funding as it has in the past. He stated that the Committee needs a timeline regarding when the Department would complete certain steps. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that he is uncomfortable with the Department doing due diligence when it has not yet identified pilot sites. He stated that the idea was for the Department to present three or five sites that it would want to pursue to the Committee for approval, and the Department would then engage in due diligence. He noted that if the Department completes due diligence prior to the Committee reviewing potential pilot sites, the Department may be wasting money if the Committee does not ultimately approve of its chosen sites. Carlson explained that if the Department completes due diligence, it would know which sites are viable before investing too much time on sites that do not have proper infrastructure in place. Carlson stated that the Department could provide the Committee with a timeline and review RFIs. He stated that the RFI puts the burden of doing research on the developer, but the Department could look into this route.
Christina Kishimoto, Superintendent, stated that she was under the impression that the purpose of the Department completing an RFI after narrowing down its sites was so that the RFI was more reflective of a targeted focus. She stated that it is too early for the Department to initiate an RFI because it would not want a scope of work for properties it would not ultimately consider. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that this is a misunderstanding. He noted that the Committee and Department scaled down to seven sites from a list of 200, and the next step is for the Department to initiate an RFI to see if developers are interested in certain properties. Once the Department completes this step and developers show interest, the Department could report this information to the Committee, and the Committee could direct the Department to complete further studies on specific sites. The RFI is for the Committee to have an understanding of sites from the expertise of developers. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that developers might only show interest in five properties, so the Department would drop its other two properties because they are not developable.
Carlson agreed with Committee Chairperson Uemura but noted that the Department would not necessarily consider properties undevelopable if developers do not show interest. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that he is unsure what the Department’s timeline look likes. He asked the Department to begin this process and present information once it has it to the Committee. Carlson stated that the Department would do so.
Committee Member Bruce Voss expressed confusion over what the consultant would present. He noted that at a previous Committee meeting, the Committee discussed opportunities for the Department to incorporate teacher rental housing on some of these lands. He detailed the consultant’s work regarding zoning, infrastructure, and utilities and noted that the Department could complete this work in a short period online. He asked if the Department’s consultant would provide information beyond this work, including whether, conceptually, types of developments are feasible in particular lots. Committee Member Voss stated that he would like to see the Department pursue this initial step, gather developer input, and then review market interest. Carlson stated that if this is the Committee’s intent, the Department could present on three selected sites it believes are most viable in the following month. He noted that there is a chance that the Department will not know everything about those sites.
Kenneth Masden, Public Works Manager, Planning Section, Facilities Development Branch, Office of School Facilities and Support Services, explained that the Department’s consultant is using sub-consultants to complete a market analysis assessment. Masden detailed due diligence stages and noted that the Department could discuss how to incorporate and manage due diligence and RFIs to get the right results.
Committee Member Brian De Lima stated that there was some disagreement over what Committee Members would support, and the Committee compromised by approving seven sites. He stated that he agrees with Committee Chairperson Uemura that the Department needs to determine whether there is interest in these sites. Committee Member De Lima detailed that if developers show interest in particular sites, then the Department should pursue those sites. If developers show interest in all seven sites, then the Department should take the next step. Committee Member De Lima noted that due diligence and RFIs are not exclusive, and the Department could work on both simultaneously. He stated that he is under the impression that there are different levels of due diligence, and the Department would undertake a more comprehensive review if developers only show interest in several sites. He stated that this is where the Department should focus its efforts.
Carlson asked for clarification and reiterated that the Committee’s expectation is for the Department to look into RFIs and proceed on this route parallel to the Department doing its due diligence. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that the Department needs to move its process forward as quickly as it can. He agreed with Committee Member De Lima and noted that the Department should focus on those sites where there is interest. He noted that the Department would not be able to gauge interest without RFIs. He further agreed with Committee Member De Lima that the Department needs to work on a combination of RFIs and due diligence. He stated that the idea is for the Department to move forward and get its project on board so it could participate in other projects.
Committee Member De Lima detailed that the Student Achievement Committee initiated an RFI process to determine other entities’ interests in becoming a charter school authorizer. He stated that the committee received responses quickly and noted that it should not take the Department a long time to complete this process. Carlson stated that the Department could set terms for an RFI.
Kishimoto stated that the Department is making decisions as it receives Board of Education input. She stated that the Department has been making progress that is difficult to define in terms of where it wants to go, but the Department is in a good place. She stated that the Committee provided the Department with additional direction in regards to RFIs, and this direction would comprise the Department’s next layer of work.
C. Update on HawaiiPay Project status for converting State of Hawaii payroll system
Jennifer Halaszyn, Project Manager, HawaiiPay, Office of Enterprise Technology Services (“ETS”), stated that HawaiiPay is providing progress updates to ensure that the Department is successful in implementing the new payroll system. Halaszyn detailed that she would review the project status and timeline, readiness activities, current progress, risks, and union communication and coordination.
Halaszyn stated that HawaiiPay’s timeline has not changed since the previous quarter. Since the last quarter, HawaiiPay notified the Department that it would implement a contingency plan it had prepared so that the Department could deploy in a different timeframe than the rest of the Executive Branch. HawaiiPay has prepared since then for that deployment, which will be in the October or November timeframe. Halaszyn noted that the Department of Accounting and General Services and the Department of Human Resources Development both deployed during the April and May timeframe. These entities have gone through four pay cycles and have paid employees since those deployment dates. Halaszyn noted that HawaiiPay would implement payroll system modernization for the remaining Executive Branch agencies, except for the University of Hawaii and the Department. On July 2, 2018, it has another wave of departments who are deploying.
Halaszyn reviewed a projected timeline. She highlighted that HawaiiPay is nearly at its second “go live” milestone. Its third “go live” milestone, which includes the Department, is currently slated for October 1, 2018. Leading up to this milestone, HawaiiPay has several cycles of testing and training planned. She noted that training includes acceptance training and parallel testing. Halaszyn explained that the Department requested early access from HawaiiPay in order to test an environment called “sandbox.” Throughout the month of June, HawaiiPay was able to add additional test cycles to its plan in order to give users opportunities to send payroll files into the system to see how they perform. Users also received the opportunity to ask questions and receive clarification.
Halaszyn reviewed the Department’s readiness checklist items for its “go live” date. She explained that HawaiiPay uses this checklist with all of its deployment groups. Halaszyn stated that the Department completed certain tasks on the checklist, and the Department is progressing with other tasks. She stated there is more work to do, but HawaiiPay accounted for this work in its project schedule. She noted that certain tasks need to be initiated now, such as formal test cycles, after the sandbox process closes in June, including training activities, formal training for managers, payroll training, and school and employee communications. Halaszyn detailed that the Department needs to map out how it will roll out communications to employees so that employees receive as much advance notice as possible regarding changes with the payroll system. Halaszyn highlighted that many departments have rolled out communications successfully. Frequency of communication seems to matter, especially as departments get closer to deployment dates. Halaszyn detailed pre-briefings related to direct deposit enrollment readiness requirements and stated that HawaiiPay holds briefings to prepare groups, answer questions, and field their concerns. She noted that HawaiiPay and the Department also need to develop a plan for enrollment drives. The Department would lead and work with HawaiiPay in regards to how it wants to conduct enrollment drives and logistics.
Halaszyn reviewed employee self-service and detailed communications regarding pay statement expectations. She stated that pay statements for employees would be available online, but HawaiiPay would continue to deliver paper pay statements to employees through the rest of the calendar year, which gives employees time to compare the online and paper versions.
Halaszyn reviewed direct deposit enrollment readiness requirements, including a prepared checklist of what employees need to be prepared for. Halaszyn detailed that HawaiiPay and the Department need to identify kiosk locations for employee self-service authorized transactions, including signing up for direct deposit. The Department also needs to communicate its enrollment window to all schools and resource offices; distribute communication documents, including flyers and posters; conduct town hall briefings for Complex Area Superintendents (“CAS”), business management officers, and charter school principals who are processing payroll with the State; schedule enrollment drives at key locations within each school district and assign support resources to assist; direct employees to attend HawaiiPay enrollment drives scheduled per island; and distribute pay statement attachments with the first check or statement on November 4, 2018, or email to all employees. Halaszyn noted that during the Department’s distribution period, it should also provide flyers to employees that explain how to read new pay statements and how calculations and tax routines may be different in the new system resulting in minor changes in net pay.
Halaszyn reviewed employee self-service features that are available in the new system that benefit employees. She highlighted that employees will be able to access, input, and update changes to direct deposits, federal and state tax forms, payroll addresses, emergency contacts, W-2s, and pay statements. Halaszyn noted that all features are available to employees on state-networked computers, with the exception of pay statements, which employees can access off-network because pay statements do not contain social security numbers, bank account numbers, or other information that a personal computer or mobile device could compromise.
Tara Cook, Payroll Functional Manager, Hawaii Pay, ETS, reviewed the Department’s current progress. She highlighted that the Department was the first jurisdiction to modify its interface files, including new hire, human resources data change, and payroll, for the new system, and it has made significant validation progress. Cook detailed that the Department agreed to implement a simplified user access structure to support payroll and human resources transaction teams. She noted that key human resources and payroll users have been engaged in data conversion, data validation, and new hire, change, and payroll files. Cook stated that key human resources and payroll users have been reviewing data converted thus far in a special sandbox environment to understand how the new system will recognize their data properly for payroll processing. The Department will also be looking to engage the help of designated school staff to setup and host direct deposit enrollment sessions in school computer labs. Cook highlighted that current progress is critical to success and ensures that the Department will set up employees correctly and pay all employees on time.
Halaszyn reviewed current risks and issues. She noted that risks and issues are addressable. She stated that Department executives are supporting the modernization effort; however, the project needs more support from certain areas. Halaszyn noted that districts, schools, and charter schools processing with the State’s payroll have not received any information on the direct deposit enrollment window. She further noted that HawaiiPay’s service center has received calls and inquiries on this. Halaszyn detailed that a credit union sent out a letter prior to April notifying credit union members that the State’s payroll system requires members to go online. Unfortunately, the credit union sent the letter to all 10,000 individuals. Department staff and faculty who are credit union members received the letter and were concerned. Halaszyn stated that the Department has an opportunity to let employees know what to expect and needs to start thinking about how it will plan enrollment for direct deposits. She stated that HawaiiPay has not yet established a communication plan or business plan as to how it will apprise charter school employees of processing changes related to employee self-service. She noted that HawaiiPay will need assistance from the Department on this step because certain charter schools pay for services from the Department while others do not. Those schools that process payroll through the State need to connectivity to the network and need communication regarding what is occurring. Halaszyn stated that these are upcoming action items. She noted that HawaiiPay and the Department have not established a communication plan as to how unions, primarily the Hawaii State Teachers Association (“HSTA”), will be supporting or directing their members to complete direct deposit enrollment. HSTA wants to know where, when, and how it can provide information to its members regarding the process. Lastly, HawaiiPay and the Department are still identifying network connectivity and kiosk locations to support employee self-service transaction, such as direct deposit enrollment for payroll implementation. Halaszyn noted that the project raised this item for all jurisdictions back in April 2017. She detailed that David Brookshire “Brook” Conner (Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Information Technology Services) is working on logistics that the Department needs to complete for network access, particularly for charter schools.
Halaszyn reviewed union communications. She noted that unions received updated communication kit materials on May 10, 2018, with regard to employee-specific activities. She detailed that Group 1 unions, specifically the Hawaii Government Employees Association and the United Public Workers of Hawaii, received files and deduction contributions for dues and equal opportunity assignments from the new system. She noted that interface file testing is in progress for unions specific to Group 2 unions, specifically the Hawaii Fire Fighters Association. Interface file testing for HSTA and the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly will commence in the July or August timeframe. Halaszyn stated that unions will be receiving briefings on direct deposit enrollment tips for employees.
Committee Member Voss expressed concern over HawaiiPay’s timeframe. He asked if two weeks is a realistic window for enrollment given the size of the Department. Halaszyn stated that the window for enrollment is achievable but would take coordination. She noted that it is a matter of early communication. She emphasized the importance of HawaiiPay and the Department ensuring that employees are prepared with banking information and scheduling drives in advance so that employees know where to go to receive help and assistance. Halaszyn noted that the actual process of employees signing up for direct deposit takes a few minutes, but HawaiiPay and the Department has to replicate it on a grand scale.
Amy Kunz, Senior Assistant Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Fiscal Services, noted that the enrollment window will be open during fall break and the Department would lose the ability to enroll 10-month employees for one week. She stated that the Department is not requiring these individuals to come in and is instead focusing on enrolling them within the first week of the enrollment drive and the first day they are back at school. She stated that the Department is targeting groups of employees to train in mid-September, including administrative and technology employees, so that they could provide assistance and field questions. The Department is also considering using school computer labs to facilitate drives at each school. She noted that the Department is enrolling part-time substitutes, cafeteria workers, and other groups of employees in addition to teachers and administrative staff. She noted that employees need to enroll on network computers and cannot enroll from home. Kunz expressed concern over security regarding computer labs but stated that the Department is mitigating these concerns by using technology coordinators at the schools for support. Nonetheless, there is risk in the Department using these machines, so it is working through the pieces in order to have a successful enrollment drive. Kunz stated that the Department needs to enroll state office employees in addition to school employees. It is reviewing how to address concerns and issues with drives that will potentially take place at schools.
Committee Member Voss stated that the first two months of the school year are difficult for schools. He asked what would happen on November 5, 2018, if a substantial number of employees did not enroll during the two-week window. Halaszyn stated that HawaiiPay is currently working through challenges with Group 2’s deployment, including holidays taking place during the deployment window. She highlighted that employees will receive paper paychecks if they do not sign up for direct deposit during the enrollment window. However, it is not ideal, especially if employees have automatic payments that come out of their accounts and they are worried about being overdrawn. She reiterated that employees will still receive paychecks on payday, but they will receive paper paychecks.
Committee Member Voss stated that the current timeframe may be problematic and encouraged HawaiiPay to implement more flexible timeframes. He noted that many individuals have auto payments and commented that the deployment period may have a spectrum of potential problems.
Committee Member De Lima expressed concern over employee self-service features. He noted that employees are only able to access pay statements and no other information on personal computers and mobile devices. He stated that employees should be able to access all features on personal computers and mobile devices. Committee Member De Lima noted that he understands security concerns and potential hesitation from the Department. Halaszyn stated that while other individuals agree with Committee Member De Lima’s sentiments and while it would be more convenient for employees to be able to access all features on personal computers, not everyone has firewalls and security patches. Committee Member De Lima stated that he works from home and has a firewall and security patches. He noted that individuals complete credit card transactions from personal mobile devices every day and reiterated that they should be able to access additional features from personal devices. Halaszyn noted that HawaiiPay is not necessarily concerned about security vulnerability within its system but is concerned about what could happen during a transaction between a personal device and the State’s system. She noted that not everyone understands this vulnerability. Halaszyn noted that many employees have expressed concern over how the State would secure personal information and banking information. She highlighted that these measures are in place to address these concerns. Halaszyn further explained that information is more likely to be secured when employees access features on the State’s network rather than outside of the State’s network.
Committee Chairperson Uemura asked HawaiiPay to identify current risks and impacts. He noted that Halaszyn listed several issues but did not explain risks or impacts related to these issues. Halaszyn stated that the risk is that the Department will be unprepared for deployment due to network connectivity and lack of communication with employees. If employees are unaware or unprepared for deployment, the deployment will catch them off guard, and they will be unhappy. She noted that HawaiiPay and the Department could mitigate these risks. Halaszyn explained that HawaiiPay and the Department are currently implementing measures regarding computer connectivity. Halaszyn further explained that HawaiiPay is urging the Department to begin its communication process early even though deployment is still a few months away. She noted that the Department would be in better shape to deploy if it communicates with employees early and often. Halaszyn stated that she does not want to see employees unable to transact direct deposits because they are unable to access a state-networked computer, and she does not want to see employees unaware and unhappy. Halaszyn noted that the Department’s employees are part of a larger population of state employees who have to go through the process. The State’s payroll system is over 50 years old, and it is miraculous that the State is able to continue to pay employees twice per month. She stated that HawaiiPay wants departments to begin the process of modernization as soon as possible to prevent the risk of not being able to pay employees.
Kunz stated that the Department has mitigated risks related to employees not signing up for direct deposit because the Department will still issue employees paper checks if they do not sign up during the enrollment window. She noted that the Department is doing everything within its power to push direct deposit, and it has been communicating with business managers, principals, and CASs. Now that it has additional details regarding schedules and deadlines, the Department is continuing to work on the aspect of communication. Kunz detailed that a work group is preparing a robust communication draft memo to inform the Department of missing information and potential questions that the Department has not addressed. Kunz stated that the Department had an opportunity to access the sandbox, and it continues to have questions as it goes through parallel testing. She noted that items are not loading properly and detailed other issues. Kunz expressed concern over the Department going live, running into issues, and having to possibly input 4,000 manual transactions. She noted that 4,000 is ten percent of the population that the Department pays. It cannot recover from a 500-error rate let alone a 4,000-error rate. Kunz noted that the Department does not have the capacity to fix its error rate if it does not pay or incorrectly pays 500 employees. She expressed concern over the Department’s mass, size, and understanding of complaints and questions that have come through the support system. She noted that the Department understanding how to mitigate these pieces is a bigger risk than not having employees sign up for direct deposit. Kunz stated that the Department is engaging in efforts to fix and resolve current and potential issues.
Committee Member Voss reiterated his concerns regarding HawaiiPay’s timeframe and agreed with Committee Member De Lima’s concerns. He noted that concerns regarding data security do not make sense if individuals do not enroll in direct deposit during the enrollment window and instead receive paper checks. He noted that there is little less security than paper checks in 2018. He stated that data security in this circumstance is based on the source of data and the firewall where data resides, not where the user is. Committee Member Voss expressed concern that pieces of the implementation do not make sense and expressed concern over implementation not going well. He encouraged HawaiiPay to review its timeframes and stated that HawaiiPay should not harm the Department’s employees by pushing a specific schedule if it appears that the Department is not ready to deploy.
Committee Member De Lima commented that he is able to access and print his tax information online. He noted that with HawaiiPay’s system, employees are only able to print pay statements. Employees are unable to view and print W-2s or input and change emergency contact information. He stated that HawaiiPay’s system is not user-friendly. Committee Member De Lima noted that money and efforts are wasted if employees are only able to print pay statements. Committee Member De Lima stated that HawaiiPay’s system stalls the concept of moving away from paper because employees are unable to access the majority of features online due to security.
Halaszyn stated that HawaiiPay is unable to address all concerns in order to allay fears. She highlighted that HawaiiPay is fortunate to have Cook on its team because Cook has been employed in states that have modernized pay systems and have gone through the same process Hawaii is going through. Halaszyn stated that seven other states have been successful, and there is no reason why Hawaii should not be successful. Halaszyn stated that she understands timeframes are tight and employees are being asked to input transactions within a few days, but other states have led by example and completed this process. Halaszyn reaffirmed her comments regarding cybersecurity and noted that HawaiiPay feels its employee self-service features accessibility is the best solution to protect employees from risks of exposure of social security numbers.
Committee Chairperson Uemura agreed with Committee Member De Lima and Committee Member Voss. He stated that HawaiiPay should be able to address Committee Members’ concerns rather than stating that it cannot address all concerns. He asked HawaiiPay to come prepared to address concerns and answer questions the next time it updates the Committee. He noted that HawaiiPay did not answer his questions regarding risks and impacts. Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that he wants to know what the risks are and what the impacts of those risks are. Committee Chairperson Uemura noted that one of the issues that HawaiiPay identified is that Department executives are supporting the modernization effort, but HawaiiPay needs more support from certain areas. He asked if the risk in regards to this issue is that HawaiiPay would not meet its timeline and asked whether HawaiiPay built flexibility into its timeline or whether HawaiiPay’s timeline assumes that everything will go according to plan. Halaszyn explained that HawaiiPay already implemented a contingency plan, and that contingency plan was to have the Department deploy with Group 3 rather than with Group 2. She noted that there is no additional time in HawaiiPay’s schedule under its current contract.
Committee Chairperson Uemura stated that HawaiiPay needs to provide the Committee with information regarding risks and impacts. He stated that HawaiiPay needs to provide information regarding how it would mitigate timeline issues. He asked HawaiiPay to provide a more meaningful update at a future Committee meeting. Committee Chairperson Uemura agreed with Committee Member De Lima’s concerns and stated that he would like a supervisor to address Committee Member De Lima’s concerns. He stated that the Committee is apprehensive about accepting current answers.
Committee Chairperson Uemura adjourned the meeting at 12:04 p.m.