Māmaki tea, made from a plant endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, is so valued by state legislators that they near unanimously passed a bill this past session to ensure its viability as a Hawaiʻi-grown cash crop.

But a powerful state senator appears to have violated Senate rules for voting in favor of House Bill 496, which seeks to protect māmaki tea by requiring that only packages containing 100% of māmaki grown in Hawaiʻi are allowed to use the word “māmaki.”

Dela Cruz is an owner of Kilani Brew, which was founded to “provide high-quality, locally sourced, great tasting tea,” according to the company’s website. It specializes in “growing and purveying premium” māmaki tea, which lists for $14 for a loose leaf tea pouches and $15 for a tea bag pouch.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat opinion writers are closely following efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to state and local government — at the Legislature, the county level and in the media. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

Locally owned and operated, Kilani Brew is based in Wahiawā, which Dela Cruz has long represented in the Senate. He’s talked about the hours he’s spent packaging the tea at his home in the Central Oʻahu town, even inviting reporters over to check out the operation.

“The smooth flavor of our Mamaki tea blend comes from selecting the best red, pink, and light green Mamaki varietals,” Kilani Brew’s website explains. “Each leaf is handpicked and each product carefully packed by hand to ensure a delicious and relaxing experience for both novice and consummate tea drinkers alike.”

Dela Cruz voted in favor of HB 496 in three separate floor votes in the 2025 session. He also heard the measure before the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which he chairs, and where he also voted in favor of the bill.

During the floor votes, however, Dela Cruz did not ask Senate President Ron Kouchi for a ruling on whether he might have a conflict before voting and so should be recused.

The Senate’s rules require that members cannot vote on legislation if there is “a direct financial interest” in the legislation, defined as affecting the legislator’s “personal business, property or financial interest.”

Senate rules also say a member can request a ruling from the president “by giving notice and disclosing” the direct financial interest prior to voting. It is not clear if he did that, as he did not respond to several inquiries from Civil Beat last week. The senator does disclose his tea business in his most recent financial disclosure.

Other senators say they were well aware of his likely conflict but were reluctant to speak out because of the senator’s power over legislation and appropriations. Only one lawmaker, state Sen. Glenn Wakai, voted against HB 496.

Perceptions Of Conflict

Questions over conflict of interest come as the māmaki tea bill is under veto consideration by Gov. Josh Green.

In a June 6 press release, the administration said the bill “imposes overly strict labeling requirements” that could hurt small businesses and māmaki producers “who responsibly blend leaves from multiple sources.”

The governor’s concerns were illustrated in a Civil Beat story in May that ran not long after session ended and before the veto threat was issued. While HB 496 is intended to ward off potential counterfeiters who grow māmaki out of state but try to sell it as made in Hawaiʻi, it could also apply to makers of māmaki that blend in mint, rosehips, lavender and other tea leaves — even if those ingredients were grown locally.

Alarmed, Hawaiʻi farmers mobilized to stop the governor from signing the bill. Green has until July 9 to decide.

Whether the bill harms or helps makers of māmaki tea, Dela Cruz’s votes for HB 496 also highlight how lawmakers go about determining — or ignoring — when and if they have potential conflicts when considering legislation.

That issue has been top of mind at the Legislature in recent years, after a House-formed Commission to Improve Standards of Conduct recommended that legislators make it more difficult to vote on bills when they may pose a conflict of interest.

The recommendation was part of a package of proposals, many but not all of them adopted, that came in 2022 after two former lawmakers were charged with taking bribes in order to influence legislation. The House did rewrite its conflict of interests rules to include some of the commission’s ideas, but the Senate did not.

The House rules, for example, state that “to the greatest extent reasonably possible,” members should manage their personal interests and obligations “so as to minimize the number of votes in which they are in, or may reasonably be perceived to be in, potential conflict.”

The state Code of Ethics also makes clear that no state employee should take “official action” — including securing passage of a bill — in which they have a substantial financial interest.”

Robert Harris, the executive director of the Hawaiʻi State Ethics Commission and also a member of the Commission on Standards of Conduct, said Friday that the House of Representatives “deserves credit for taking significant steps” to enhance its conflicts of interest rules. He called it a crucial step toward boosting public trust in government.

“I hope other legislative bodies will emulate their lead,” he said.

A Conflict-Free Senate?

Not only did Dela Cruz not publicly ask for a ruling on a conflict during floor session, no other senator did, either. That’s according to the 2025 Senate Journal.

But at least 10 times during public floor sessions House members asked for and received a ruling on conflicts of interest from House leadership, according to the 2025 House Journal.

They include Rep. Della Au Belatti, who asked for a ruling and was recused from voting on House Bill 990, the claims against the state bill that paid out tens of millions of dollars in legal settlements.

Speaking on the House floor, Belatti said she consulted the House’s chief attorney pursuant to House rules, as she works for a law firm that had one of the claims — even though, she said, she did not work on the particular case. The attorney determined that Belatti did have a conflict.

Belatti also asked for a ruling on House Bill 36, legislation that would have prohibited excited delirium from being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death in the state. Her law firm litigated the case of Sheldon Haleck, who died in 2015 after an altercation with Honolulu police officers. City experts in a trial tried to blame Haleck’s death on excited delirium.

In the case of Bill 36, which died, House Speaker Nadine Nakamura ruled that Belatti had no conflict. As Belatti noted in her floor remarks, the case had been litigated long before introduction of the bill.

Rep. Scot Matayoshi, meantime, asked to be recused from voting on House Bill 1001, which will establish the Maui Wildfires Settlement Trust Fund for settlement of claims related to the 2023 Maui wildfire.

“Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to declare a conflict,” Matayoshi said in public on the floor. “My employer represents a defendant in the litigation of the underlying measure.”

“So ordered,” said Nakamura.

Rep. Kanani Souza asked for a ruling on House Bill 603 that, had it passed, would have given money to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for a marketing program. She also asked for a ruling on House Bill 1358, which would give OHA money to help a public land trust working group.

Souza’s brother, Keoni Souza, is an OHA trustee. In both cases, there was no conflict, House leadership determined.

Souza told Civil Beat she agreed there was no conflict, as the bills would have applied to a class of people — in this case, Native Hawaiians that are OHA beneficiaries — and not specifically to her brother.

“I err on the side of disclosure every single time so that we can be transparent in the public sphere,” said Souza, who has received similar rulings when voting on bills regarding the Hawaiʻi Correctional System Oversight Commission. Her cousin, Mark Patterson, is the commission’s chair.

On another bill, this one expanding workers’ compensation medical benefits for firefighters, Rep. Lauren Matsumoto asked for a conflict of interest ruling because she’s married to a firefighter.

Rep. Linda Ichiyama, at the time the vice speaker, said there was none because the bill — which died — applied to a broad class of people. Rep. Mahina Poepoe, who is also married to a firefighter, subsequently asked for a ruling and received the same determination.

Similarly, Rep. Ikaika Olds, who is a disabled veteran, was ruled to have no conflict in voting on a bill exempting disabled veterans from the state’s vehicle weight tax and annual vehicle registration fee. (The bill died.)

In the case of Dela Cruz and the māmaki tea bill, it’s not clear whether he might be considered part of a class potentially impacted by the bill. In his most recent financial disclosure, he said he earned no money from Kilani Brew, for example. And the māmaki tea industry is a small one.

But, in spite of questions over whether it would actually financially benefit farmers, that was precisely the intent of HB 496. The Hawaiʻi Farmers Union, the Hawaiʻi Farm Bureau and the Hawaiʻi Department of Agriculture all supported it.

“As the demand for māmaki tea continues to grow both locally and internationally, it is vital that Hawaii establishes itself as a leader in quality and authenticity,” Hunter Heaivilin, advocacy director for the Hawaiʻi Farmers Union, testified.

As for Dela Cruz, who grew up in Wahiawā in the 1970s and 1980s when Del Monte and Dole Food Co. dominated the area, he almost certainly recognizes the value of māmaki tea. In the Senate he has long made diversifying the economy to incorporate more agriculture a priority, and to position Wahiawā in that direction.

Listen to the senator himself extoll the virtues of his favored crop in this video on the Hawaiʻi Agricultural Foundation website:

“My family’s been in the Wahiawā area for over three generations,” Dela Cruz told the foundation. “And this is something that continues their legacy.”