Draft Minutes for June 18, 2025 Meeting

Posted in Main, Minutes

Draft

Campaign Spending Commission Meeting
Zoom Video Conference
June 18, 2025
10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Present
David Chee, Neal Herbert, Jon Itomura (Via Zoom), Barbara Polk, Danton Wong

Staff Present
Kristin E. Izumi-Nitao, Tony Baldomero, Kristie Chang, Terence Lau (Via Zoom), Anthony Diep

Deputy Attorney General
Candace Park (Via Zoom)

Guest(s)
Chad Blair (Via Zoom), Robert Armstrong (Via Zoom)

Call to Order
Chair Chee called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

Chair Chee went over the procedures for the hybrid in-person and remote meeting via Zoom and introduced the Commissioners and Commission staff who were present.   Commissioner Itomura participated in the meeting via Zoom and stated that there was no other person with him.  Deputy Attorney General Candace Park was not present during the introduction.  Chair Chee asked to be notified when Deputy Attorney General Candace Park joins the meeting.

Consideration and Approval of Minutes of Meeting on 5/14/25
Commissioner Polk moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5/14/25.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

New Business
*Welcome and Introduction of New General Counsel Kristie Cruz Chang – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that General Counsel Chang started with the Commission on 6/17/25.  General Counsel Chang is a graduate of Kamehameha Schools.  In 1994, she earned a B.S. in Psychology and minor in Biology from Lewis & Clark College, and in 1997, a J.D. from Loyola Law School.  She was in private practice for six years specializing in estate planning, tax planning, and business planning and has spent the last 21 years as a Deputy Attorney General in the Tax & Charities Division representing the Department of Taxation and the Attorney General in the capacity as paren patriae.  In her free time, she enjoys spending time with her husband and three children.

*Chair Chee asked to take the matters out of order and make the Presentation, Discussion, and Approval of Standard Fine Guidelines the last item on the agenda in anticipation of it being a longer discussion. There was no objection.

Deputy Attorney General Park joined the meeting via Zoom at 10:10 a.m.

Old 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 the Commissioners were informed at the last meeting that all four bills the Commission submitted did not pass, and that they can be considered for introduction for the next legislative session.  At the last meeting, there was one bill remaining that had been enrolled to the Governor for consideration.  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 Governor signed this bill into law on 5/16/25 as Act 64.  She added that due to the effective date of this law, the Commission retains jurisdiction over lobbyists for this past legislative session.  State Ethics Commission will have jurisdiction over registered lobbyists for future legislative sessions, but the Commission will still escheat the prohibited contribution from the committees.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked if the law is effective upon the Governor signing the bill or is publication needed.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the law is effective as of 5/16/25.

Report from Executive Director
*Report on Compliance of Filing Timely Disclosure Reports – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that the next Supplemental Report is due on 7/31/25 for all 435 candidate committees and 255 noncandidate committees that are registered with the Commission.  The report covers the period of January 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025.  She also stated that she has no update on past reports.

*Report on the July 2025 CSC Newsletter – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that the Commission provides bi-annual newsletters in January and July.  The targeted distribution date for the July newsletter is 7/10/25 and it will include information on the following topics:

  • Wrap-up of the 2025 legislative session
  • Reminder to all committees to file the Supplemental Report due on 7/31/25
  • Updated reporting schedules including information on a new reporting schedule starting 1/1/26 depending on when the candidates file their nomination paper
  • New – Standard Fine Guidelines
  • HRS Chapter 92H – Restrictions on publication of certain public servants’ personal information
  • Reminder to update Organizational Report
  • Requirement for term limited candidates
  • Termination of committee registration with the Commission
  • Commission’s 2025 budget request for additional funding for FY 2026-2028
  • Committees who are in violation of the campaign finance laws
  • Reminder to check off the $3 box on your 2024 tax return
  • Mahalo to General Counsel Gary Kam and welcome General Counsel Kristie Chang
  • (If applicable) Mahalo and welcome of new Commissioners

Commissioner Wong asked how the newsletter will be distributed other than it being posted on the Commission’s website.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that it will be emailed to all registered committees and e-blasted to anyone who is on our subscriber email list.

*Discussion on Senate Resolution No. 156, S.D. 1 and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 143, S.D. 1 – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that these resolutions were issued by the Senate on 5/21/25, and Commission staff informed Chair Chee of the resolutions on 6/2/25.  She explained that these resolutions urge Boards & Commissions to conduct an annual performance review of their Executive Director or persons holding equivalent positions exempt from civil service law, including evaluations on the meeting of state goals and statutory mandates of the board/commission.  She stated that staff’s recommendation is that the Commission is an unique agency to the extent that it has adopted a mission and a strategic plan to which the Executive Director prepares an annual report at the end of each fiscal year for presentation, discussion, and approval at a Sunshine meeting.  Upon approval, it is then publicly posted on the Commission’s website.  Thus, there is an annual review of the Commission’s goals and statutory mandates that occurs every year.  As for job performance, whenever there is a pay adjustment and/or surplus of funds, the Executive Director meets the Commissioners in Executive Session to discuss staff performance.  Therefore, there has been compliance with these resolutions prior to their adoption.

Vice-Chair Herbert commented that if the Commission is already in compliance with the resolutions, then it would not be necessary for further action and asked that staff review the resolutions again to ensure that there are no other requirements such as providing reports.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that she is not aware of such requirement and that the resolutions exist as suggestions of best practices for board members, but the Commission can choose to take additional action if it finds that necessary.

Chair Chee commented that if the Commission is ever asked to provide a report, they would already exist in the newsletters and annual reports that were publicly discussed at open meetings and shared online.  He believed that no changes were necessary.

*Discussion, Application, and Implementation of HRS Chapter 92H (Act 187, SLH 2024) – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that this law was passed in the 2024 legislative session.  The purpose of this act is to prohibit personal information of protected individuals to be publicly accessible.  Effective 10/1/24, upon receiving written notification from the Hawaii State Judiciary’s representative Ironwall360, who was contracted to identify personal information of protected persons in the Hawaii Judiciary system that are publicly accessible, the Commission is mandated to remove information such as the home address of Hawaii Judiciary personnel who have been included in reports filed by candidate or noncandidate committees.

She reported that the Commission have received two requests from Ironwall360 to remove home address information that appeared on committee reports, and that staff is in communication with Hawaii Judiciary to develop protocols, because it contradicts the Commission’s law that requires the publication of home addresses of contributors.  She further explained the protocol between the Commission and Hawaii Judiciary as follows:

All requests to remove protected information will be sent in writing by the Judiciary.

  1. Commission staff will notify State of Hawaii’s Enterprise Technology Services to replace the protected information as identified in the request with this language “Redacted pursuant to HRS §92H-2.” The Commission has three business days to complete the removal and can request an extension of up to an additional 10 business days.
  2. After information is removed, Commission staff will inform the Judiciary, and they will inform their covered person.
  3. The Commission will also inform the affected committees that certain protected information was redacted on their reports.

She added that this protocol is only limited to the Judiciary.  The Commission can expect future discussions with other entities that are covered by this law, such as the legislature.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked staff if AI is being used to identify the protected information and what the penalty is for noncompliance.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that there is no penalty addressed in the law and is unaware if AI is being used.  Furthermore, the Commission will only fulfill the specific request as stated in the Judiciary’s written notification.

Chair Chee commented that the Commission’s position is simply to be responsive to any notification.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao agreed and added that it would not be possible for the Commission to proactively search for protected information because it lacks the resources and that it would also conflict with the Commission’s statutes.

Commissioner Wong asked staff if the protected person’s information was removed from a previous report decide to make more contributions, how would it be handled.  Associate Director Baldomero explained that when a candidate enters a contributor’s information, it exists in the filing system within the committee’s internal account in a filed report on the Commission’s public website, and in the Commission’s searchable database.  The contributor’s protected address information that the committee created internally will be redacted as well, so when the same person makes another contribution and the committee uses the correct profile to post the entry, then it would show only the redacted information.  He also added that if the Commission receive a HRS §92F government record request, then the redacted information will need to be added back to the database prior to being provided to the requester.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that if a protected person has a name change, it would be up to the party they are associated with to inform the Commission in writing, because the Commission does not have the resources to know this.  The Commission also will not advise committees to self-censor information of contributors they believe to be protected.  All redactions are to be done internally, and the Commission will only respond to written requests from legitimate sources per the law.

Commissioner Wong wanted to know who is covered by this law and discussion ensued on how wide of a scope it could be when considering family members of the protected person are covered.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that there are exceptions to this law that the Commission may want to consider for inclusion, but the Commission was not considered as an exception in the initial development of this bill.

Executive Session
*Consideration and Approval of Executive Session Minutes of Meeting on 5/14/25 –Chair Chee asked if there were no corrections or amendments to the proposed executive session minutes on 5/14/25, he would ask for a motion in open session.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to approve the executive session minutes on 5/14/25.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Polk.  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, 4/23/25, and 5/14/25 Commission meetings for further consideration by the Commission.  She reported that there are two (2) areas that the Commissioners have not made any decisions yet.

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

  • Status quo – all committees may receive up to 2 Conciliation Agreements in each of the 5 categories and there is no reset.
  • 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.
  • 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.

As applied to noncandidate committees (who do not appear on the ballot, and thus, have no “marker”), 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.

The Supplemental Report covering the period ending on December 31 of an election year will be considered part of the first year’s reports and available for a Conciliation Agreement for both qualified candidate and noncandidate committees, although it is not due until January 31 of the following year.  This is in consideration of the committees that declared to only receive contributions or make expenses of less than $1,000 in the aggregate, as this will only be the second report they are required file for the election year.

  • 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. To receive a Conciliation Agreement, committees will be required to submit a written affirmation attesting to their eligibility to receive one which Commission staff will verify.

She recalled from the last meeting that Commissioner Polk and Vice-Chair Herbert’s proposal and Chair Chee’s proposal were the only two proposals of interest.

Chair Chee stated that the proposal he offered is simply an alternative that he found easier to translate to words.  His main concerns are clarity and implementation.  If the Commission can improve the language of Commissioner Polk and Vice-Chair Herbert’s proposal, then he has no objection to it.

Commissioner Polk suggested moving the eligibility deadline for Conciliation Agreements from December 31 of an election year to January 31 of the following year to eliminate the confusion of the rule applying to the Supplemental Report covering the period ending on December 31 of an election year.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that for purpose of enhancing clarity of the fine guidelines, staff merged the Conciliation Agreements categories into the fine guidelines, and it now exists as part of the table which will show if a violation is eligible for Conciliation Agreements alongside it.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked staff if the explanation regarding fine reduction for first, second and third violation for Conciliation Agreements is needed in the footnote.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded no, because it seemed self-explanatory as shown on the table, but we can add it in the footnote if needed.

Commissioner Wong suggested revising the Conciliation Agreement column header to say that it is only available to first-time candidate or noncandidate committees, and in the footnote clarify the requirement to be considered a first-time candidate or noncandidate committee.

Chair Chee commented that the priority is to decide on the policy, and the final version of how the fine guidelines is visualized might depend on how the policy is decided.  He suggested that the Commission come to a consensus on the policy first, then staff can further refine the graphics afterwards to better communicate the policy.

Commissioner Wong asked staff where would candidate and noncandidate committees that are not eligible for Conciliation Agreements find their fine amount on the fine guidelines.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that if the committee is not eligible for a Conciliation Agreement, then they would be fined based on statutory requirements or under the administrative catch-all, and that Commission staff utilizes these amounts to send out fine notices so that not all violations would end up being a complaint.

Chair Chee recommended for the Commission to vote on the fine guidelines section-by-section, starting with whether Conciliation Agreements should be allowed only to first-time candidate and noncandidate committees.

Commissioner Polk was concerned that there is no certain way to determine who is a new noncandidate committee.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that most of the violations by noncandidate committees are from business owners using a company check to make a contribution not knowing that they would have to register and file report with the Commission.  Chair Chee added that the Commission’s goal is to gain compliance, and if allowing Conciliation Agreements for newly registered noncandidate committees can lead to better compliance rates, then it is generating the intended result, but if the data shows otherwise then the Commission can make an adjustment accordingly.

Commissioner Polk moved to adopt the proposal to only allow Conciliation Agreements for new candidate and new noncandidate committees.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

Commissioner Wong asked if the deadline for when Conciliation Agreements will no longer be available is moved from December 31 of an election year to January 31 of the following year.  Chair Chee asked for a motion on this proposal.

Commissioner Wong moved to adopt the proposal that Conciliation Agreements will no longer be available for new candidates and noncandidate committees after the Supplemental Report covering the period ending on December 31 which is due on January 31 of the following year.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Polk.  Motion carried (5-0).

Chair Chee asked if the Commission would like to vote on changing the reduced fine amount for Conciliation Agreements from 1/2 to 1/3 for second time Respondents.

Commissioner Polk did not agree with offering Conciliation Agreements for item 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election.”

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao clarified that Commissioner Polk is referring to the type of violations that Conciliation Agreements are eligible for, and currently those categories are:

  1. Late reports (except for late contribution/expenditure reports)
  2. Advertisement disclaimers
  3. Electioneering communications
  4. Excess non-resident contributions
  5. Excess contributors

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that “Late Reports” is the category that Commissioner Polk is concerned with.

*Meeting entered recess at 11:34 a.m.

*Meeting resumed session at 11:42 a.m.

Chair Chee asked Commissioner Polk to state her concern regarding the eligibility of Conciliation Agreements for item 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election.”

Commissioner Polk stated that the reports in 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election” are too critical to the election to allow any reduced fine.

Chair Chee asked staff about the number of Conciliation Agreements that were offered in the last year for violation of reports 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election.”  Associate Director Baldomero reported that for the 2nd Preliminary Primary report, there were four Conciliation Agreements for candidate committees, and two Conciliation Agreements for noncandidate committees.  For the 2nd Preliminary General report, there was one Conciliation Agreement for candidate committees, and no Conciliation Agreement for noncandidate committees.  He added that committees rarely miss this report because candidates do not want their names posted on the Commission’s website so close to the election.

Chair Chee commented that he understands Commissioner Polk’s concern but since the number of violations is not substantial, it would not make much difference by excluding it from Conciliation Agreements eligibility.  Commissioner Polk disagreed stating that the focus should be on the importance of these reports and not the number of violations.

Commissioner Wong viewed it necessary to allow Conciliation Agreements for this category as well since it is only limited to first-time candidates now.  He feels that there should be learning opportunities for new candidates.

Vice-Chair Herbert agreed with Chair Chee’s sentiment that there are not too many violations for this report that the policy can stand as is for now, and if there are any new developments then the Commission can reconsider this proposal.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao commented that staff’s recommendation is to maintain the eligibility of Conciliation Agreements for reports under 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election.”  Considering that these reports fall under the same umbrella as the other general reports, it would be better for staff to explain and committees to understand if they qualify for Conciliation Agreements.

Discussion ensued on the importance of these reports, and whether implementing changes is necessary considering the minimal number of violations that occurred.

Chair Chee asked staff how many of the recipients of Conciliation Agreements for these reports from this past year were from repeat offenders.  Associate Director Baldomero responded that he did not have that information on hand, but the fact that Conciliation Agreements were offered means that they did not have more than two violations.

Commissioner Polk asked how the fine amount is calculated for committees who file these reports late.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that the amounts shown on the fine guidelines apply to those who do not file the reports, and Conciliation Agreements are only available if the committee filed the report.  Late fines for filing a late report are calculated based on how many days the report is late, and the aggregate fine shall not exceed 25% of the total amount of contribution or expenditures, whichever is greater, for the period covered by the report.

Commissioner Polk asked staff why there are three tiers of fine when there are only two reports in 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election.”  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that 2A.2 is considered to be in the same category of reports as 2A.1 “Disclosure Reports.”  They are all disclosure reports, except the reports in 2A.2 are due 10 days before an election so there is a higher fine for them.  If a committee has been late once on a report in 2A.1, then when they are late again on a report in 2A.2, it would be considered the second time that they are late.  Commissioner Polk said that the explanation is not clearly stated on the fine guidelines.

Chair Chee commented that the importance is that the Commission agrees on the policy first.  After that happens, staff will have a better direction of amending the fine guidelines visually.

Commissioner Wong asked if a Conciliation Agreement is not eligible for the reports in 2A.2, then does every committee who filed late receive whatever fine amount is calculated based on however many days that the report is late.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that the calculation process is the same, it is just that the fine amount will no longer be reduced.  If the committee wants to be heard by the Commission, then it becomes a Complaint.

Discussion ensued on whether offering Conciliation Agreements is an effective policy to allow new candidates a learning opportunity.

Chair Chee reminded the Commission that Conciliation Agreements are only made available for committees to request, and that it still requires the Commission’s approval, so just allowing it does not mean that fines will automatically be reduced.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao added that the fine guidelines are simply a basis for staff to be able to establish fine amounts to notify committees, and if the committees want to make other requests such as a Conciliation Agreement or Complaint, then it would come before the Commission.

Commissioner Wong asked staff if the Commission publishes on its website the names of those committees that pay the fine upon notice.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that only the committees that do not file a report are required to be published by law.  Once the committees comply with filing the report, their names are removed from the website regardless of whether they paid their fines.

Commissioner Polk moved to adopt the proposal to exclude the 2nd Preliminary Primary Report and the 2nd Preliminary General Report from Conciliation Agreement eligibility.  Motion seconded by Vice-Chair Herbert.  Chair Chee and Commissioner Wong voted “no.”  Motion carried (3-2).

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that based on the outcome of the motion, any mention of a Conciliation Agreement will be removed from 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election” on the fine guidelines, and the exclusion will also be specified on the fine notices to committees.

Commissioner Polk asked staff how the fine is calculated under HRS §11-340 for reports under 2A.2.  Associate Director Baldomero explained that there is a fine of $300 per day for each day after the deadline that the report is not filed, but the aggregate total of the fine cannot exceed 25% of the total amount of contributions or expenditures, whichever is greater, for the period covered by the report.  If the total fine is lower than the 25% of the committee’s total activity, then the minimum fine of $300 would apply.  He added that based on this calculation method, the fine could be high for noncandidate committees because their reports in 2A.2 covers a longer reporting period than candidate committees and therefore will have more activity.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao informed the Commission that the next item for them to decide on would be the effective date of the revised fine guidelines.  She stated that staff’s recommendation is that it starts with the Supplemental Report due on 2/2/26 to permit staff time to inform and educate the committees.

Commissioner Polk moved to adopt the proposal to make the revised fine guidelines effective on 2/2/26.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated the next item the Commission needs to address is the tiered fines.  She noted that there are three recommendations, the first is Chair Chee’s suggestion of having just two tiers rather than three.  The first tier remains as is and the 2nd violation will have the fine amount set forth in the 3rd violation.  The second recommendation is Commissioner Polk’s proposal of having just a flat fine of $1,000 for not filing the reports due 10 days before an election in 2A.2 and increasing the fine of not filing the special reports in 2A.3 and 2A.4 to $1,000 and, if filed late, the fine would be $750.  The third proposal is staff’s recommendation to keep it status quo as to permit education and quicker resolution.

Commissioner Wong is concerned that implementing a flat $1,000 fine might be too high for new candidates.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao noted that staff sees a lot of new candidates at every election and many of them have family members operating as officers.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked staff if the Commission website provides a checklist containing step-by-step guidelines that committees can follow.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that there is a flowchart illustration that displays the various path of when to file certain reports based on what category the committee falls under and a guide for first-time candidates.

Vice-Chair Herbert asked if staff notices significant noncompliance in these areas, would they recommend to the Commissions that these fines be increased.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that recent data does not indicate any substantial increase in noncompliance, hence staff is recommending to maintain the tiered fine as is.

Chair Chee stated that he would like to withdraw his proposal and is in favor of staff’s recommendation of keeping it status quo.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to adopt the proposal to incorporate a flat fine of $1,000 for not filing the reports due 10 days before an election in 2A.2 and increasing the fine of not filing the special reports in 2A.3 and 2A.4 to $1,000 and if filed late to $750.  Motion did not receive a second, and this, failed.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that the tiered fines in 2A.1 “Disclosure Reports” and 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election” are linked, meaning that not filing a report in 2A.1 would be counted toward 2A.2 and vice versa.

Chair Chee asked if the Commission wants to make a motion to change 2A.2 “Reports Due 10 Days Before an Election”, 2A.3 “Late Contributions Report, and 2A.4 “Late Expenditure Reports.”  No motion was made.

Commissioner Wong asked staff if the Commission has the ability to adjust a fine amount for reports submitted late in 2A.2 considering that Conciliation Agreements are no longer eligible, at 25% of the total amount of contributions or expenditures at $300 per day, the fine could be significant.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that if the Committee is unable to pay the fine, then they can request to be heard by the Commission which will then result in a Complaint that will be presented to the Commission.  The Commission then can choose to reduce the fine, but she noted that it would create a precedent if fines were reduced.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao asked that the Commission also determine if a reset is appropriate for the number of times that a committee invoked the tiered fines.  She stated that historically there have never been a reset and staff’s recommendation is to keep it as is.

Chair Chee asked if there is a motion to reset tiered fines.  There was no motion, so the tiered fines remain.

Commissioner Polk asked if the tiered fines apply to just new candidates.  Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that it applies to all committees and there is no reset.

There being no further business, Chair Chee stated that the Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 13, 2025 and asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Vice-Chair Herbert moved to adjourn the meeting.  Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong.  Motion carried (5-0).

Meeting Adjourned at 12:52 p.m.