Campaign Spending Commission

Campaign Spending Commission Meeting
Zoom Video Conference
May 14, 2025
10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Present
David Chee, Neal Herbert, Jon Itomura, Barbara Polk, Danton Wong (Left meeting at 11:40 a.m.)

Staff Present
Kristin E. Izumi-Nitao, Tony Baldomero, Terence Lau, Anthony Diep

Deputy Attorney General
Candace Park

Guest(s)
Sheila Medeiros, Brandee Medeiros, Elijah Pierick, Kanani Souza, Nelson Sua, Kara England, Project Nehemiah Hawaii, Evalani’s S22 Ultra

Call to Order
Chair Chee called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m.

Chair Chee went over the procedures for the remote meeting via Zoom and introduced the Commissioners, Commission staff, and the Deputy Attorney General who were present.  The Commissioners present stated that there was no one else with them, except Commissioner Itomura, who had a staff member present with him.

Consideration and Approval of Minutes of Meeting on 4/23/25
Vice-Chair Herbert moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4/23/25.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

New Business
*Docket No. 25-26 – In Re the Matter of Elijah Pierick and Elijah Pierick – District 39 – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a Complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Respondents for the failure to report a contribution in the 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report, Final Primary Report, and 1^st Preliminary General Report, and the failure to report an expenditure in the Supplemental Report and the 1^st Preliminary General Report.

She reported that in the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Pierick is the candidate and the treasurer of the candidate committee called Elijah Pierick – District 39.

Pursuant to HRS §11-331(a), every report required to be filed by a candidate or candidate committee shall be certified as complete and accurate by the candidate and treasurer.  Respondents timely filed the 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report, Final Primary Report, 1^st Preliminary General Report, and the Supplemental Report.

On 2/26/25, Respondents amended the four (4) aforementioned reports.

Based upon a comparison of the original and the amended disclosure reports filed by Respondents, Respondents failed to report a contribution in the amount of:

(1)  $2,000 on 7/22/24 from Republican State Leadership Committee in the 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report (July 1–July 26, 2024);
(2)  $300 on 8/8/24 from Mr. Mark Sindelar in the Final Primary Report (July 27–August 10, 2024); and
(3)  $1,800 on 9/18/24 from Oahu League of Republican Women (NCC) in the 1^st Preliminary General Report (August 11–September 26, 2024).

Based upon a comparison of the original and the amended disclosure reports filed by Respondents, Respondents failed to report an expenditure in the amount of:

(1)  $174.87 on 9/24/23 to Vista Print in the Supplemental Report (July 1–December 31, 2023); and
(2)  $870.59 on 9/10/24 to USPS Ewa Beach in the 1^st Preliminary General Report (August 11–September 26, 2024).

Therefore, these reports were not complete and accurate when they were timely filed.

On 3/5/25, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail of their failure to report three (3) contributions and two (2) expenditures and that a fine of $1,250 (i.e., $250 per report that the contribution or expenditure was not reported) would be assessed against them pursuant to HRS §11-410(a) and HAR §3-160-73(a).  The letter informed Respondents that they could avoid the complaint process by waiving their rights to be heard at a HRS chapter 92 public meeting and a HRS chapter 91 contested case hearing, and voluntarily paying the fine amount by 3/19/25.  This letter was addressed to Respondents at the addresses listed on their current Organizational Report.

Respondents did not pay the administrative fine.

On 3/20/25, Commission staff phoned Respondents informing them that if they did not pay the fine, a Complaint would be filed.  Respondents informed staff that they would not pay the fine and wanted to be heard before the Commission.

On 3/25/25, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the Complaint and set the matter on the 5/14/25 Campaign Spending Commission Agenda.

Respondents have not responded to the complaint within 30 days from the mailing of the Complaint, and therefore, pursuant to HRS §11-403(c), the Commission may treat the failure to explain or respond as a rebuttable presumption that a violation has occurred.  However, Respondent is present at the meeting today to respond in-person.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao recommended that the Commission make a preliminary determination, pursuant to HRS §11-405(a), that probable cause exists to believe that a violation of the campaign spending law has been committed, assess an administrative fine of $1,250 for the failure to report three (3) contributions and two (2) expenditures, order that the fine be paid from the candidate’s personal funds if the candidate committee’s funds are insufficient to pay the fine, or if the Commission so orders, and order that any and all administrative penalties be deposited into the general fund pursuant to HRS §11-410(e).

Respondent Pierick was present and apologized for not having timely filed his reports accurately.  He stated that he fully intended to comply with laws and rules, and unfortunately, mistakes were made but nothing was intentional.  He added that he didn’t provide a response to the Complaint because he thought appearing at the meeting would suffice.  He further stated that contributions he received were deposited by him, and he would relate the information to his treasurer to report on the Commission’s filing system.  He was not aware of the missing items in his reports until he was contacted by Commission staff in February to amend his reports.  He also mentioned that he spent much less money to run his campaign than his opponent, so he wasn’t trying to hide large contributions from corporations or lobbyists.

Chair Chee asked Respondent Pierick if he found anything in the Complaint to be incorrect.  He responded that he disagreed with the manner that the Complaint was presented as it portrayed him as being impolite and deferred the facts in the Complaint to the Commission, stating that he thought his team had filed all reports correctly, but based on what was presented, it appears that he made several mistakes.  Respondent Pierick added that he appreciates the opportunity to speak with the Commission and asked for forgiveness to not have to pay the fine as his mistakes were not intentional.

Vice-Chair Herbert commented that they did not believe Respondents’ errors to be intentional.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to make a preliminary determination that probable cause exists that a violation had been committed and to accept the fine and terms stated in the complaint.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

Chair Chee commented that he understands that Respondent Pierick’s mistakes were not intentional; however, campaign finance laws are in place because it is important for the citizens of Hawaii to be provided with accurate information when it needs to be provided, so the Commission needs to apply the rules and laws consistently.

*Discussion and Consideration of Approval of Rescinding Commission’s Advisory Opinions No. 25-01 and No. 25-02 – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that both Advisory Opinions concerned the application of HRS §11-381 regarding the permissible use of campaign funds to pay for adult dependent care expenses (Advisory Opinion No. 25-01) and to pay for childcare expenses (Advisory Opinion No. 25-02) necessitated by a candidate’s participation in campaign activities.

Governor Green has signed S.B. 1202 into law as Act 19 on 4/22/25 thereby eliminating the need for these Advisory Opinions.  For purpose of clarity, there is now a law permitting candidates to use campaign funds for adult dependent care and childcare expenses that incur from a candidate’s participation in campaign activities.  Therefore, she recommended that the Commission rescind Advisory Opinion No. 25-01 and Advisory Opinion No. 25-02.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked why the two Advisory Opinions needed to be rescinded.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that it is to avoid any confusion between the language that Commission staff used and that of the law.  Chair Chee agreed that any inconsistency between the Advisory Opinions and the law could confuse the public.

Commissioner Wong moved to rescind Advisory Opinions No. 25-01 and No. 25-02 as a result of a new law codifying the use of campaign funds for these reasons.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Itomura.  Motion carried (5-0).

*Chair Chee asked to take the matters out of order in consideration of members already present for Docket No. 25-19 – In Re the Matter of Sheila Medeiros, Brandee Medeiros, and Friends of Sheila Medeiros.  There was no objection.

Old Business
*Docket No. 25-19 – In Re the Matter of Sheila Medeiros, Brandee Medeiros, and Friends of Sheila Medeiros – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that this matter was continued from the 1/8/25 Commission meeting for the Commissioners to consider the appropriate fines to assess and not to address the substantive issues of the violations for which Respondents admitted to at the 1/8/25 Commission meeting.

As such, she reminded the Commissioners that the complaint sets forth 5 violations totaling a fine of $1,600 to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the Commission’s order and order to amend their reports within 30 days of receipt of the Commission’s order:

• Count I – Unauthorized Handling of Campaign Funds (HRS §11-324(d)) – Respondent Medeiros was not designated as a treasurer or deputy treasurer of her candidate’s campaign account and wrote 7 checks totaling $7,083.74. Staff recommends a fine of $100 which is the administrative fine assessed in prior matters.
• Count II & V – Failure to Report an Expenditure (HRS §11-333(b)(3)) – Respondents failed to report an expenditure of $13.50 in Schedule B in their 1A Preliminary Primary Report and an expenditure of $1,545.55 in Schedule B in their Final Primary Report. Staff recommends a fine of $250 for each report (i.e., $500) which is the administrative fine set forth in the Commission’s Schedule of Fines and order Respondents to file amended reports.
• Counts III & IV – False Report (HRS §11-331, 333, 335) – Respondents’ 1B Preliminary Primary Report and 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report reported contributions and expenditures which are inconsistent with their bank records. Staff recommends a fine of $500 for each report (i.e., $1,000) which is the administrative fine set forth in the Commission’s Schedule of Fines and order Respondents to file amended reports.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that since the 1/8/25 meeting, Respondents had not filed amended reports until last night at approximately 7:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  As such, staff has not had sufficient time to review the reports in its entirety.  However, based on staff’s initial review, Respondents addressed the violation in Count I (Unauthorized Handling of Campaign Funds) by filing an amended Organizational Report which added Respondent Sheila Medeiros as a deputy treasurer.  She recommended that the administrative fine of $100 be enforced because a violation had occurred.  Further, she reported that Respondents filed amended reports to address the violations in Counts II & V (Failure to Report an Expenditure), but again recommended that the fines of $250 for each report still be assessed because the expenditures were not reported in the original reports.  As for the violations in Counts III & IV (False Report), she stated that staff has not had enough time to review the reports in their entirety to check for consistencies with the committee’s bank records, but initial review indicated that there are still errors in the amended reports.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao added that some of the mistakes are obvious including a $10,000 contribution from Gary Cordery which Commission staff could see from Respondents’ bank records was actually a $1,000 contribution.  She commented that this contribution as reported is an excess contribution and inflated the committee’s overall balance.  She recommended that the fines of $500 for each report be enforced and order that Respondents file amended reports that reflect the activity in their bank records.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao recommended that the Commission make a preliminary determination, pursuant to HRS §11-405(a), that probable cause exists to believe that a violation of the campaign spending law has been committed, assess an administrative fine of $1,600 for the violations and order that Respondent Medeiros use personal funds to pay the fine if Respondents’ candidate committee has insufficient funds to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the order, order that any and all administrative fines be deposited into the general fund pursuant to HRS §11-410(e), and order that Respondents amend the 1B Preliminary Primary Report and 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report to reflect the bank records within 30 days of receipt of the order.

Respondent Sheila Medeiros was present and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to amend her reports, but she disagreed with Executive Director Izumi-Nitao’s comment about her not contacting Commission staff for assistance.  She stated that she did contact Commission staff after the January meeting and did make amendments; however, when she reviewed her reports the day before today’s meeting, she noticed that the changes she had made were not reflected in the reports.  She said that she immediately called Commission staff multiple times to inform them that she is working to amend her reports.  She added that upon reviewing her reports, she noticed that there were some double entries because she had started making changes to items that she had already made earlier after not seeing them being reflected in her reports, which was the reason for the last-minute adjustments to the reports.  She continued to acknowledge that there were administrative errors by her team as it is a difficult system to learn and that candidates need training for it.  She asked the Commission to have grace for a first-time candidate’s unintentional mistakes.  She thanked Commission staff for their assistance and agreed that she needs to work with them more to correct her reports.

Chair Chee asked Respondent Brandee Medeiros whether she had any further comment to which she responded no.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked the Respondents if they attended the Commission’s training session or viewed the training videos on the Commission’s website during her campaign.  Respondent Sheila Medeiros said she did not attend the training due to a lack of time to prepare for her campaign.  She admitted that mistakes were made and that she is continuously learning from Commission staff, such as how to properly file amended reports.

Commissioner Wong moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to HRS §92-5(a)(4) to consult with the Commission’s attorneys on questions and issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. Motion seconded by Vice-Chair Herbert. Motion carried (5-0).

*Commission went into Executive Session at 10:40 a.m.

*Commission returned into public session at 10:46 a.m.

Chair Chee asked Commission staff if it is correct that the fine guidelines applied to this Complaint is the fine guidelines that was in effect at the time the violations occurred.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded yes, and that it is still the current fine guidelines since the Commission has not approved of any new fine guidelines yet.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao asked Commission staff to provide clarification on staff’s assistance to Respondents in this matter.  Administrative Assistant Diep stated that Respondent Sheila Medeiros did call Commission staff for assistance, however, he had only received two calls from her since the 1/8/25 meeting.  The first call was a week after the 1/8/25 meeting, and the second call was the day before today’s meeting, which was when he provided instructions to Respondent Sheila Medeiros on how to refile her amended reports.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to make a preliminary determination that probable cause exists that a violation has been committed and to accept the fine(s) and terms stated in the complaint.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Polk.  Commissioner Itomura abstained as he was not present at the initial hearing of this Complaint on 1/8/25.  Motion carried (4-0).

Chair Chee thanked Respondents for appearing at the meeting and commented that he understands that it is a steep learning curve for new candidates.  He hopes that Respondents will continue to learn so that they don’t incur any more violations.

Respondent Sheila Medeiros thanked the Commission and acknowledged her mistakes, however, still feels that it is a large fine to be assessed against a first-time candidate, but she will take this as a learning experience.

*Chair Chee stated that the meeting will now resume with agenda’s original order.

 New Business
*Discussion, Consideration, and Selection of Campaign Spending Commission Leadership – Chair Chee reported that due to personal reasons, Vice-Chair Herbert has decided to resign from the Commission.  Based on Commission staff’s ongoing conversations with Judicial Council, it is anticipated that Vice-Chair Herbert’s replacement will be announced in the near future.  Chair Chee added that his term with the Commission will end on 6/30/25, and although he had expressed interest to hold over with the Commission for a second term, it is not certain that he will be reappointed.  Therefore, he stated that it would be appropriate to elect a new Vice-Chair at this time as a contingency plan in the event that both he and Vice-Chair Herbert’s seats be vacated at the same time.

Vice-Chair Herbert commented that if the Governor does not introduce a replacement for Chair Chee then he will still maintain his position with the Commission even after the expiration of his term as a hold-over.  Chair Chee acknowledged that he is aware of the circumstance but would like to have a plan in place if he is not extended for another term.  Chair Chee then asked for comments and discussions on the selection of a new Vice-Chair to assume Vice-Chair Herbert’s seat upon his departure from the Commission.

Commissioner Itomura nominated Commissioner Wong as Vice-Chair.

Commissioner Wong commented that he would be willing to serve as Vice-Chair if called upon.

Vice-Chair Herbert nominated Commissioner Itomura as Vice-Chair based on his seniority with the Commission.

Commissioner Itomura stated that he would be honored to serve, however, given his current travel schedule, he believes Commissioner Wong would be the better fit to serve as Vice-Chair.  Commissioner Polk and Chair Chee were also in favor of Commissioner Wong serving as Vice-Chair.

Commissioner Itomura moved for the selection of Commissioner Wong as Vice Chair of the Commission to commence upon the naming of Vice-Chair Herbert’s replacement.  Motion seconded by Vice-Chair Herbert.  Motion carried (5-0).

 Old Business
*Presentation, Discussion, and Approval of Standard Fine Guidelines – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that this matter was continued from the 2/5/25, 3/12/25, and 4/23/25 meetings for further consideration by the Commission.  She highlighted the below changes as a result of discussions from the 4/23/25 meeting.

First, as requested, the format of the Schedule of Fines has been modified for better identification and reference of the violations and Conciliation Agreements was added as a fourth column.

Second, with respect to Conciliation Agreements, she reported that as of today, there are four (4) proposals for their consideration:

(1)  Status quo – all committees may receive up to 2 Conciliation Agreements in each of the 5 categories and there is no reset.
(2)  Staff proposal – all committees may receive up to 2 Conciliation Agreements in each of the 5 categories and there will be a reset upon termination.
(3)  Commissioner Polk and Vice-Chair Herbert proposal – Conciliation Agreements are only available to new candidates defined as candidates who appear on a ballot for the first time or who have not appeared on a ballot for the previous 4 years, regardless of whether they terminated their committee registrations with the Commission or are running for another office. Conciliation Agreements will no longer be available after December 31 of an election year.  This essentially allow Conciliation Agreements to only new candidates and it will reset if a candidate has not appeared on a ballot for the previous 4 years.Notably, there needs to be a counterpart as to how this would apply to noncandidate committees.  Perhaps, it could be that Conciliation Agreements are only available to new noncandidate committees defined as committees who are registering with the Commission for the first time or who may have terminated their registration, but who have not reregistered for the previous 4 years.  Conciliation Agreements will no longer be available after December 31 of an election year.
(4)  Chair Chee’s proposal – all committees may receive 1 Conciliation Agreement in each of the 5 categories of 1/3 reduction and there is no reset.

Chair Chee stated that he proposed the fourth option for a Conciliation Agreement because he found that the definition of a “first-time candidate” might be difficult to be put into writing in ways that is clear for the public to understand.  He also thought that the idea of a reset for candidates who have not appeared on a ballot for the previous 4 years could become a loophole for candidates who do not terminate their registration with the Commission and also do not continue to run for office.  He commented that candidates should be able to learn from the first Conciliation Agreement and that this would be simpler for candidates to understand as well as administratively easier for Commission staff to administer.  He also proposed to add a condition in the Conciliation Agreement that would require candidates to affirmatively declare to the Commission that they have not had a prior violation in the same category.

Commissioner Itomura commented that not allowing a reset would not address the concerns of possible changes in the laws and new officers joining an existing committee as discussed at previous meetings.

Vice-Chair Herbert suggested that new candidates be asked to take a written test on campaign finance laws and have it be kept on record so that the Commissioners can consider that for violations.  Commissioner Itomura stated that this could be an administrative burden for staff.

Chair Chee suggested adding the condition that candidates must have completed training to be eligible for a Conciliation Agreement and asked if Commission staff can enforce it.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that the Commission cannot make training mandatory, but it is possible to implement it as a condition to qualify for a reduced fine.  Associate Director Baldomero added that staff would have to look into an online training system to meet this requirement, but stated that there are guidebooks and cyberlearning videos available to candidates on the Commission’s website.

Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the topic of allowing a reset to address new officers joining an existing committee.  Commissioner Wong explained that he thought not limiting Conciliation Agreements to only new candidates would take into consideration committees with new officers and does not mean that it would reset for any committee with new officers.

Chair Chee recommended to table the matter to the next meeting for further discussion, and that any Commissioner who would like to add to the proposal may submit it to Commission staff so that they can organize and distribute it for the Commissioners to review ahead of the 6/18/25 meeting.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao added that she can put in writing the current proposals for the Commissioners to review which they can discuss at the next meeting.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that there is one other matter that the Commissioners should also consider for the next meeting.  Specifically, with respect to the tiered fines, Chair Chee has suggested that rather than having a tiered fine that accounts for 3 violations, there should be only 2 violations and the 2nd violation will have the fine amount set forth in the 2nd violation (see, 2A.1, 2A.2, 2C, 3A, 3B, 5D, 5G, 7B, and 7H).  She will include this for the Commissioners’ review and discussion at the next meeting.

New Business
*Consideration, Discussion, Approval, and/or Update of Commission Legislation and Other Related Bills/Resolutions for the 2025 Legislative Session – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported on the status of the Commission’s bills and other related bills.

She stated that at the last Commission meeting, there were four (4) House bills (H.B. 369, H.B. 370, H.B. 371, and H.B. 413), three (3) of which were introduced by the Commission (H.B. 369, H.B. 370, and H.B. 371), that were being discussed in the conference committees.  None of them came out of conference so none of the Commission’s bills passed this year.

She reported that there were two (2) bills proposed by other persons that have been enrolled to the Governor – (1) S.B. 1202 which permits the use of campaign funds to be used for childcare and vital household dependent care costs was signed into law by the Governor on 4/22/25 as Act 19 (which was the basis for recommending rescission of Advisory Opinions Nos. 25-01 and 25-02); and (2) H.B. 413, H.D. 1, S.D. 1 which clarifies which office (i.e., the Commission or the State Ethics Commission) will handle violations where lobbyists are prohibited from making, or promising to make at a later time, any contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of an elected official, candidate, candidate committee, or any other individual required to file an organizational report pursuant to §11-321 five days before, after, and during legislative session which means a period in which both legislative houses are in session.  The Commission testified in support of both bills.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that while the Governor is constitutionally required to provide his notice of his intent to veto to the Legislature by 6/24/25, notice will be given by 6/6/25 due to his traveling schedule.  Departments and agencies will have the opportunity to meet with the Governor’s Policy Team the week of 6/16/25 to discuss bills on this list.  The Governor has until 7/9/25 to veto bills or the law will go into effect without his signature.

Report from Executive Director
*Report on Compliance of Filing Timely Disclosure Reports – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that she has no update on this matter.

*Update on Hiring a New General Counsel – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a new General Counsel will be starting on 6/17/25.

Executive Session
*Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 92-5(a)(2) – Review, consideration, and discussion of Commission staff performance and compensation.

Commissioner Itomura moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to HRS §92-5(a)(2) to review, consideration, and discussion of Commission staff performance and compensation. Motion seconded by Commissioner Polk. Motion carried (4-0).

*Commission went into Executive Session at 11:47 a.m.

*Commission returned into public session at 12:00 p.m.

Next Meeting:
Scheduled for Wednesday, June 18, 2025.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to adjourn the meeting.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Itomura.  Motion carried (4-0).

Meeting Adjourned at 12:02 p.m.