My recent blog/email, SB933CD1 – a travesty of process and policy, seems to have struck a chord. 

While the merits of the actual policy decision are debatable, it is absolutely clear the process violates House/Senate rules AND both the spirit, the intent and the actual language contained in our State Constitution.

I watched every single committee meeting with SB933 on the agenda. No legislative committee ever discussed publicly the bills contents, and nor were the contents of the final SB933CD1 bill ever disclosed to the public during any public meeting.

Since committee members did not meet and discuss SB933CD1 in public, obviously they had to have met in private (in person or via email or online) in order to come to a decision on SB933CD1.

If a member or members of a legislative committee met in private for the purpose of making a decision on matters referred to the committee, that would be a violation of the State Constitution Article III which states in part:

Every meeting of a committee in either House or of a committee comprised of a member or members of both Houses held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.”

While SB933CD1 is an extremely egregious example, the practice of legislative committees making decisions on matters before them in private is the norm and not the exception. If you can stomach it, please read on for more of the same.

Spilling Tea All OVER the State Constitution

My interest in HB496: Relating to Māmaki Tea was piqued recently by a piece written by Chad Blair published in Civil Beat on June 22, 2025.

Blair’s article focused on the failure of State Senator Donovan Delacruz to publicly disclose his ownership of a business that grows and processes māmaki tea. Senate Rule #85, prohibits Senators from voting on issues that constitute a direct conflict.

My first reaction to reading the story? 

I laughed out loud, in a deeply cynical kind of way.

For those in power at the legislature, rules don’t matter.

When pressed by public or private attorneys in court, legislative leadership in both the House and the Senate will say clearly and firmly that they don’t have to follow the rules if they don’t want to.

Crazy, huh? The rules don’t seem to matter and neither it seems does the State Constitution.

The passage of HB496 involved five different committee hearings, two conference committee meetings, and several “floor votes.” 

So, a few days ago, I invited my best friend Max to climb up into my easy chair with me, and together we watched the official video record of all seven public committee meetings in which HB496 was on the agenda.

Max and I watched all seven meetings. Never once was there any public discussion between committee members. There was no mention of any potential conflict of interest and there was no deliberation pertaining to HB496. 

Senator Delacruz is of course the Chair of Ways and Means (WAM), the most powerful committee in the Senate. WAM was one of the 7 Committees to hear and pass without HB496 without any discussion between committee members.

Each meeting had exactly the same formula: 

1. The Chair called the meeting to order. 

2. Public testimony was taken.

3. The Chair either went “direct to decision-making” or announced a “short recess.” 

4. When a “short recess” was called, the Chair would normally reconvene the meeting after a few minutes, and go directly into “decision-making” which equates to announcing the decision already made in private outside the public committee meeting.

NO committee member in any of the seven meetings ever asked a question, or suggested any other option or concern related to the decision being announced. 

There are only three possible situations that could drive this scenario:

1. The committee members don’t care about HB496.

2. They completely trust the Chair to make the decision without their input.

3. Individual committee members and/or the Chair’s had already met via phone, email, or in person, discussed HB496 amongst themselves, and reached a consensus on the decision in private, outside the public committee meeting.

Article III of the Hawai‘i State Constitution declares: “Every meeting of a committee in either house or of a committee comprised of a member or members from both houses held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.”

After watching and rewatching the video record of the seven different committee meetings, it seems obvious to me (and Max too) that committee deliberation and decision-making had to have occurred outside of those public meetings, because NO deliberation or discussion between committee members occurred at ANY of them.

Clearly, the seven committee meetings were held ONLY to receive public testimony and/or to announce a decision that had been made in private prior to each meeting.

Thus, the process under which HB496 passed through the legislative process did not comply with the Hawai‘i Constitution.

Hmmm. This sounds vaguely (or exactly) like Acasio v. House, the case now before the courts.  

Will see what the judge says.

Gary Hooser
Former lots of things…
Now just a tūtū man looking for good trouble
http://www.garyhooser.com
https://garyhooser.blog