Minutes for August 12, 2020 Meeting

Posted in Minutes

Campaign Spending Commission
Zoom Video Conference
August 12, 2020
10:00 a.m.

Commissioners Present
Bryan Luke, Stanley Lum, Maryellen Markley, Ph.D., Neal Herbert

Staff Present
Kristin Izumi-Nitao, Tony Baldomero, Gary Kam, Yayoi Tumamao, Ellisa Vendiola
Deputy Attorney General Candace Park

Guests
Scott Collins, Esq., Richard Wilson, Esq., David Hayakawa, Esq., Howard Luke, Esq., John Perkin, Esq., Rick Sing, Esq., Sandra Haskell, Mike Sakai, Esq., Brandee Faria, Esq., Mike Ellis, Shannon Matson, P.M. Azinga, James Kawachika, Esq., Sandy Ma (Common Cause), Blaze Lovell

Call to Order
Chair Luke called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.

Chair Luke went over the rules for this video conference meeting. This meeting was moved to video conferencing in consideration of Governor Ige’s and Mayor Caldwell’s recent orders and the high number of COVID-19 cases to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the participants.

Consideration and Approval of Minutes of Meeting on 7/15/20
Chair Luke asked for comments or changes to the minutes. There were none. Chair Luke called for a motion to approve the minutes.

Commissioner Markley moved to approve the minutes of the 7/15/20 meeting. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Lum. Motion carried (4-0).

Chair Luke asked for a motion to take “Docket No. 20-11 – In Re the Matter of Richard E. Wilson, James J. Wade, John F. Perkin, Sandra P. Haskell, and Thurston H.B. Wong” out of order of business on the agenda.

Commissioner Herbert moved to take Docket No. 20-11 out of order. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Lum. Motion carried (4-0).

Old Business
*Docket No. 20-11 – In Re the Matter of Richard E. Wilson, James J. Wade, John F. Perkin, Sandra P. Haskell, and Thurston H.B. Wong
Chair Luke disclosed that he is related to Mr. Howard Luke, Esq., attorney for Respondent Perkin although they have never met before. Chair Luke stated that if Mr. Luke has any issues with him voting on the matter, he will recuse himself, but that he could remain fair and impartial in this matter. Mr. Luke responded that he does not have any issues with him voting and his client does not object to that. He added if the other parties had any objections, they should voice it. There were none.

General Counsel Kam stated that HRS §11-352 provides that “No person shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate committee, or noncandidate committee in any name other than that of the person who owns the money, property, or service.” Under HRS §11-412(b), a violation of §11-352 is a class C felony.

General Counsel Kam explained that on or about 10/25/19, attorney Siiri Wilson, submitted a written statement to Commission staff that indicated that her husband, Respondent James Wade, an attorney, told her that on 8/1/18, Respondent Richard Wilson, an attorney, went to Respondent Wade’s workplace, The Law Office of Perkin & Faria, and offered to give Respondent Wade, Respondent John Perkin, an attorney, and Respondent Sandra Haskell, money if they would contribute in their own names to the Friends of Mel Rapozo. Respondents Wade, Perkin, and Haskell are all connected to the law firm. Respondent Wilson was formerly employed by the law firm.

On or about 11/5/19, Ms. Siiri Wilson met with Commission staff. She presented copies of bank records from her joint account with Respondent Wade. The records showed that on 8/1/18, Respondent Wade wrote a check in the amount of $1,000 to the Friends of Mel Rapozo. On the same day, Respondent Wade also deposited a check in the amount of $1,000 from Mary Wilson, Respondent Wilson’s mother, into the account.

The Friends of Mel Rapozo reported the receipt of $1,000 contributions each from Respondents Wade, Perkin, and Haskell on 8/3/18.

The Friends of Mel Rapozo also reported the receipt of a $4,000 contribution from Respondent Thurston Wong on 7/27/17. Respondent Wong had the same address as Respondent Wilson.

In November 2019, Commission staff wrote to Friends of Mel Rapozo and asked for copies of the contribution checks from Respondents Wade, Perkin, Haskell, and Wong. After the Commission received copies of the contribution checks, the bank accounts of Respondents Perkin, Haskell, and Wong were subpoenaed by Commission staff.

On 1/16/20, staff received Respondent Wong’s bank records. The records revealed that on 6/22/17, a $4,000 check dated 6/21/17 from Respondent Wilson was deposited into Respondent Wong’s account. Five days after that date, Respondent Wong wrote his $4,000 contribution check to Friends of Mel Rapozo.

On 1/17/20, staff received Respondent Haskell’s bank records. The records revealed that on 8/2/18, a check dated 8/1/18 in the amount of $1,000 from Mary Wilson was deposited into Respondent Haskell’s account. On the same date, Respondent Haskell wrote her $1,000 contribution check to the Friends of Mel Rapozo.

On 1/23/20, staff received Respondent Perkin’s bank records. The records revealed that on 8/1/18, a $1,000 check from Mary Wilson was deposited into Respondent Perkin’s account. On the same date, Respondent Perkin wrote his $1,000 contribution check to the Friends of Mel Rapozo.

On 2/18/20, staff wrote to Respondents Wade, Perkins, Haskell, and Wong asking them: Question #1 – Whether Respondent Wilson asked them to write their contribution checks to Friends of Mel Rapozo; and Question #2 – Whether Respondent Wilson reimbursed them for their contributions with a check from Mary Wilson, or in the case of Respondent Wong, with a check from Respondent Wilson.

On 3/10/20, staff received a letter dated 3/6/20 from Respondent Wong. His response to staff’s inquiry was: Question #1 – No; and Question #2 – No.

On 3/13/20, staff received a letter from Respondent Perkin. In his response to staff’s inquiry, he indicated that although Respondent Wilson did ask him to write the $1,000 check to Friends of Mel Rapozo, Respondent Wilson did not give him the $1,000 check from Mary Wilson to fund or reimburse him for the contribution to the Friends of Mel Rapozo.

On 3/16/20, staff received a letter from David Hayakawa, Esq., attorney for Respondent Wade. In response to staff’s inquiry, Mr. Hayakawa informed staff that Mr. Wade asserts his U.S./Hawaii constitutional rights and Rule 509 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence against self-incrimination. Mr. Wade also asserted the spousal privilege under Rule 505 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence to prevent the disclosure of any communication that he might have had with Ms. Siiri Wilson who was his wife at the time of the communication.

Respondent Haskell did not respond to Commission staff’s 2/18/20 letter of inquiry.

A search of the Commission’s database of contributions revealed that Respondents Wade, Perkin, Haskell, and Wong have made a combined total of 6 contributions to candidates over the 14-year period covered by the Commission’s electronic database. Respondents Wade’s and Haskell’s contribution to Friends of Mel Rapozo was the only contribution either of them have ever made to Hawaii candidates.

Respondents Perkin and Wong have each made only one other contribution in Hawaii. They both contributed $500 to Bernard Carvalho on 6/4/18.

This complaint was served upon Respondents on 7/2/20.

The Commission has jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to HRS §§11-314 and 11-401 to 11-412.

Under HRS §11-404, the Commission can either (1) summarily dismiss the complaint, (2) order further investigation, (3) make a preliminary determination of probable cause, or (4) refer the complaint to an appropriate prosecuting authority.

Count I – Violation of HRS §11-352 (False Name Contribution): Respondent Wilson solicited or aided the $1,000 contribution that Respondent Wade made to Friends of Mel Rapozo on or about August 3, 2018. That contribution was funded by money owned by Mary Wilson and not Respondent Wade as reported by Friends of Mel Rapozo.
Count II – Violation of HRS §11-352 (False Name Contribution): Respondent Wilson solicited or aided the $1,000 contribution that Respondent Perkin made to Friends of Mel Rapozo on or about August 3, 2018. That contribution was funded by money owned by Mary Wilson and not Respondent Perkin as reported by Friends of Mel Rapozo.
Count III – Violation of HRS §11-352 (False Name Contribution): Respondent Wilson solicited or aided the $1,000 contribution that Respondent Haskell made to Friends of Mel Rapozo on or about August 3, 2018. That contribution was funded by money owned by Mary Wilson and not Respondent Haskell as reported by Friends of Mel Rapozo.
Count IV – Violation of HRS §11-352 (False Name Contribution): Respondent Wilson solicited or aided the $4,000 contribution that Respondent Wong made to Friends of Mel Rapozo on or about June 27, 2017. That contribution was funded by money owned by Respondent Wilson and not Respondent Wong as reported by Friends of Mel Rapozo.

General Counsel Kam stated the Commission staff recommends that the Commission finds that it believes that Respondents may have recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally committed a violation of law and refer the complaint to the state Attorney General for further investigation and potential prosecution pursuant to HRS §§11-404(4), 11-411, and 11-412(b).

Mr. Scott Collins, Esq., attorney for Respondent Wilson, was present and introduced himself and Respondent Wilson who was also present.

Respondent Wilson addressed the Commission. He said he thought what he did was okay. He explained that the reason why he shares the same address as Respondent Wong is because they share an office space together. Respondent Wong owns a paralegal practice and Respondent Wilson is a solo practitioner. Although they did not work together, they often helped each other out. Respondent Wilson explained that he represented Respondent Wong’s parents in a lawsuit. While Respondent Wilson expected no payment for representing them, Respondent Wong’s parents insisted that a payment of about $4,000 to $4,500 be accepted. Respondent Wilson ultimately accepted this payment.

Respondent Wilson further explained that in 2015, Respondent Wong helped him out in a 3-week jury trial case called “Sapigao.” Respondent Wilson paid Respondent Wong $4,000 for his help. While Respondent Wong refused to accept the $4,000 at first, Respondent Wilson insisted that he accept the money. The $4,000 was to compensate him for one week of work assuming $100 an hour as the rate Respondent Wong usually billed his clients. Respondent Wilson displayed a check stub with the writings “Thurston”, “Sapigao”, and “4000”. Respondent Wilson stated that he did not ask for a receipt.

Respondent Wilson stated that he did not know Respondent Wong was donating the money to Councilmember Mel Rapozo. While Respondent Wilson is very close to Councilmember Rapozo, Respondent Wong had no connection with Councilmember Mel Rapozo.

With regard to Respondents Perkin, Wade, and Haskell, Respondent Wilson explained that he invited them to Councilmember Rapozo’s fundraiser. The fundraiser ticket was priced at $1,000 to attend. He told them that his mother would take care of their tickets since she was not well enough to attend the event. Respondent Wilson stated that his mother passed away in June of last year. Respondent Wilson stated that he had discussed with Councilmember Mel Rapozo if what they were doing was okay and was told that it was okay.

Respondent Wilson stated that if his mother had donated $3,000 and they showed up instead of her, that would be wrong because they are taking credit for a check she wrote. Respondent Wilson further stated that he also looked at the statute and did not see anything that stated gifts to third parties which are either implicitly or explicitly to be used as contributions are prohibited. Respondent Wilson apologized and said he did what he thought was responsible by talking to the candidate and looking at the statute. He added that if he had misread the statute, he was sorry.

Mr. Collins stated while he understood why the meeting is being done via Zoom, a lot gets left out regarding sincerity. He said he has known Respondent Wilson for a long time and he holds him in high regard. He asked the Commission to consider motive. If Respondent Wilson had a motive, why didn’t he just pay cash rather than leaving such a blatant paper trail that anyone could look at. In contrast, Mr. Collins asked that the Commission consider Ms. Siiri Wilson’s motive and pointed out discrepancies in her statement. Mr. Collins said Ms. Wilson wrote that Respondent Wilson’s family individually donated and exceeded the maximum amount allowed but wanted to contribute additional funds. He said this is false. Secondly, Ms. Wilson wrote that her husband came home and told her allegedly that he did something wrong. Mr. Collins said her husband is refuting that statement. Moreover, Mr. Collins noted that Ms. Wilson waited 14 months to report this despite her claim that it was her ethical duty to do so.

Mr. David Hayakawa, Esq., attorney for Respondent Wade, addressed the Commission. During this time, he said that Respondent Wade was a junior associate at the Perkin firm. Respondent Wade was invited to Councilmember Rapozo’s fundraiser during a regular pau hana or get together in the office. When Respondent Wilson said his mother would cover their fundraiser ticket, Respondent Wade remembers Respondent Perkin asking Respondent Wilson if it was “kosher” to which Respondent Wilson responded yes and that he had spoken to Councilmember Rapozo to ensure that it was allowed.

Mr. Hayakawa said he provided the Commission with a timeline of what had happened so they can really see the manipulation of the system. He said what the complainant, Respondent Wade’s wife, stated in her statement about Respondent Wade coming home and telling her that he broke the law is blatantly false. He went over the timeline and the nature of Respondent Wade and Ms. Siiri Wilson’s divorce proceeding.

Commissioner Markley asked if it was necessary for Mr. Hayakawa to go over the divorce.

Mr. Hayakawa responded that it was important because it was not until her settlement agreement concerning joint custody of their children was rejected on 10/16/18 that Ms. Wilson contacted the Commission. That week, she contacted the Commission, and on 10/22/18, she handed Respondent Wade a print-out of the campaign finance law and criminal penalties. Mr. Hayakawa said that that was when Respondent Wade realized there might have been a problem with the fundraiser check.

Mr. Hayakawa continued that the complainant filed a motion with the court that she had been in contact with the Commission and the Attorney General’s Office and that a public announcement would be issued shortly that Respondent Wade will face a felony charge as well as disbarment, and therefore, he should not be allowed to have custody over their children.

Mr. Hayakawa asked the Commission not to refer the case to the Attorney General’s Office or to the prosecutor’s office.

Mr. Howard Luke, Esq., attorney for Respondent Perkin introduced himself and Respondent Perkin who was also present. He explained Respondent Perkin’s health conditions.

Mr. Luke stated that Respondent Perkin did not submit anything in writing to the Commission. He stated that Respondent Perkin was asked to attend Councilmember Rapozo’s fundraiser and make a contribution. While Respondent Perkin cannot recall the exact question he had asked, he did ask Respondent Wilson if it was permissible. Respondent Perkin was assured by Respondent Wilson that he and Councilmember Rapozo looked into it and that it was in fact permissible. Respondent Perkin accepted that it was okay and did not do any research into the issue because he believed Respondent Wilson and Councilmember Rapozo.

Mr. Luke said the check for $1,000 signed by Respondent Perkin was a blank check. Respondent Perkin often signed blank checks for his office and for this particular check, he did it ostensibly for the purpose of making that donation. Respondent Perkin did not know there was any problems with the check until he received a subpoena from the Commission. Mr. Luke stated that Respondent Perkin is very remorseful for what happened and regrets it.

Ms. Brandee Faria, Esq., attorney for Respondent Perkin, was asked if she had anything to add and she responded in the negative and that she was just observing.

Mr. Rick Sing, Esq., attorney for Respondent Haskell introduced himself and Respondent Haskell who was also present. He stated that Respondent Haskell was a legal assistant at the Perkin firm at that time. Mr. Sing also stated that she was a long time and loyal employee of the firm. He pointed out that Respondent Haskell is the only party in this case who is not a trained and licensed lawyer. As a legal assistant, her job was to let the lawyers decide on the course of action and then provide them assistance.

Mr. Sing explained that Respondent Wilson was a regular at the office. Respondent Wilson invited Respondent Haskell and others to the Councilmember Rapozo’s fundraiser and offered to pay for them. Respondent Haskell did not see anything wrong with that at the time. In fact, the lawyers who were present – the lawyers who gave her instructions and directions on a daily basis – told her that it was okay and that they checked it out with the candidate as well and she relied on that. Mr. Sing urged the Commission not to refer this case for prosecution and stated that Respondent Haskell will accept an administrative fine.

Respondent Perkin expressed that he is mortified that Respondent Haskell got dragged into this matter and pleaded with the Commission for leniency on her behalf. Respondent Perkin stated that Respondent Haskell was just trying to do a favor for someone who was his friend and that she had no role in terms of somehow trying to evade the law.

Mr. Sing commented that Respondent Haskell is currently employed by a federal magistrate and that anything beyond the Commission will be career-ending for her.

Deputy Attorney General Park asked Mr. Sing whether Respondent Haskell attended the fundraiser to which Mr. Sing responded yes.

Mr. Mike Sakai, Esq., attorney for Respondent Wong, was present and stated that Respondent Wong was unable to get out of his schedule to attend this meeting.

Mr. Sakai stated that he submitted Respondent Wong’s declaration outlining what had transpired when Respondent Wilson paid Respondent Wong for his services rendered. Mr. Sakai said he has known Respondent Wong for a very long time. He explained that Respondents Wong and Wilson shared an office space and while it was very rare that Respondent Wong would accept any payment from Respondent Wilson, he accepted $4,000 for his work done in the Sapigao case.

After 4-5 days after accepting the $4,000 payment, Respondent Wong wrote a check to Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Sakai emphasized that at no time did Respondent Wilson suggested to Respondent Wong that he should use the money to make a donation. Mr. Sakai explained that Respondent Wong decided to donate to Councilmember Rapozo because his name came up a lot and he appreciated the fact that Respondent Wilson was a strong supporter of Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Sakai summarized that Respondent Wong was paid and that he used his own money to donate to Councilmember Rapozo. Mr. Sakai asked the Commission to dismiss the case as it relates to Respondent Wong.

Commissioner Herbert asked Respondent Wilson if he did in fact tell Respondent Haskell that he would pay for her fundraiser ticket. Respondent Wilson responded that he did not remember the exact words but remembers going to their office and telling them that he can take 3 people because his mother was unable to attend. Commissioner Herbert asked why he did not just pay for the ticket himself. Respondent Wilson stated that if he or his mother wrote the check and then 3 people showed up and said they were part of that check, he thought that would be a false name. Respondent Wilson stated that that was his thinking at the time.

Deputy Attorney General Park asked Respondent Wilson if he submitted a written statement to the Commission to which he replied in the negative because he wanted to address the Commission in person. Deputy Attorney General Park further asked Respondent Wilson to clarify if he had said he asked Councilmember Rapozo whether it was going to be okay for them to do this. Respondent Wilson responded yes.

Vice Chair Lum asked the Respondents and their attorneys whether the funds from Respondent Wilson’s mother was deposited as services rendered under a contractual agreement or deposited into their personal account.

Mr. Collins responded he had no information regarding how the money was deposited. Mr. Hayakawa responded that it was deposited into the same account as the account Respondent Wade used to write the contribution check. Respondent Perkin responded that it was deposited into his personal account. Mr. Sing responded that it was deposited in Respondent Haskell’s personal account.

Chair Luke asked for a motion to convene in 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 regarding In Re the Matter of Richard E. Wilson, James J. Wade, John F. Perkin, Sandra P. Haskell, and Thurston H.B. Wong.

Vice Chair Lum moved to convene in Executive Session for the aforementioned reason. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

Chair Luke explained how the Executive Session will occur.

Public Session reconvened at 12:28 p.m.

Commissioner Markley asked General Counsel Kam what would happen if the Commission referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office for prosecution. General Counsel Kam responded that the complaint is independently investigated by their investigators and then discussed with their deputies regarding whether to prosecute. It is totally independent at that point.

Commissioner Markley asked whether they would look at the Commission’s investigation or they would start from the beginning. General Counsel Kam responded that while he hopes they would look at what the Commission submits, they do issue their own subpoenas for their investigations.

Chair Luke asked if there were any more questions. There were none.

Commissioner Herbert moved to forward the complaint to the Attorney General’s Office. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Lum. Motion carried (4-0).

Chair Luke asked for a motion to take “Docket No. 21-04 – In Re the Matter of P.M. Azinga and Committee to Elect P.M. Azinga” out of order of business on the agenda.

Commissioner Markley moved to take Docket No. 21-04 out of order. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 21-04 – In Re the Matter of P.M. Azinga and Committee to Elect P.M. Azinga –
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against P.M. Azinga and Committee to Elect P.M. Azinga for the late failing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Azinga is listed as the candidate and treasurer of the candidate committee called Committee to Elect P.M. Azinga.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(a), Respondents were required to file the 1B Preliminary Primary Report for the period covering 1/1/20 through 6/30/20 by 11:59 p.m. Hawaii standard time on 7/9/20. Respondents did not file this report by the deadline.

On 7/10/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail of their failure to file this report and that a fine would be imposed.

On 7/10/20, Respondents filed the report.

On 7/17/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail that a fine of $50 would be assessed for the late filing of the report. Respondents did not pay the late report fine.

On 8/3/20, Respondent Azinga informed Commission staff that she would like to contest the fine.

On 8/4/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 8/12/20 Commission agenda.

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 $50, 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 order that the fine, or any portion, be paid from the candidate’s funds, and order that any and all administrative penalties be deposited into the general fund pursuant to HRS §11-340(g) within two (2) weeks of receipt of this order.

Respondent Azinga was present and addressed the Commission. She asked the Commission to dismiss the complaint. She explained that the Commission informed candidates that the 1B Preliminary Primary Report can be submitted until 11:59 p.m. on July 9, 2020. At 7 p.m. on July 9, 2020, she said she attempted to sign-in to her account to file the report and was unsuccessful so she called the Commission office and left a message. In total, she stated that she made calls to the office and left messages at 7 p.m., 8 p.m., 9 p.m., 10 p.m., 10:30 p.m., 11 p.m., 11:30 p.m., 11:45 p.m. and received no response.

Ms. Azinga said she consulted with other campaign spending commissions that serve the western region and learned that despite dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and working remotely, there was a practice of flexibility of schedule particularly to extend services on the date and time of reporting deadlines to be available to resolve any concerns.

Ms. Azinga stated that at 7:45 a.m. on the next day, she contacted the office and was finally able speak to a staff member and was able to file within 15 minutes. She said there must have been a glitch of some kind. Ms. Azinga said this was her first time being late for a report and that the system is not user friendly. She added that the fact that no one was able to assist her made things ineffective.

Commissioner Markley asked if Commission staff has records of Ms. Azinga trying to reach the office. Associate Director Baldomero responded that Ms. Azinga left messages at 9 p.m., 9:14 p.m., 9:47 p.m., 10 p.m., and 12:01 p.m. He said that he did not have a record of her leaving messages at 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that Commission staff does their best to notify committees through their e-blasts about report deadlines and that all reports have a reporting cycle that ends before the actual deadline. For instance, the 1B Preliminary Primary Report covering 1/1/20 to 6/30/20 was not due until 7/9/20. Unfortunately, Ms. Azinga called the office after hours. Unlike the offices on the mainland as Ms. Azinga mentioned, the Commission office closes at 4:30 p.m. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao further added that she was not aware of any glitches with the system during that time.

Ms. Azinga argued that the automatic messages or email communications did not state that while committees can file until 11:59 p.m., no one will be able to provide assistance. She said she has been running a campaign and she faced difficulties campaigning during the pandemic.

Vice Chair Lum asked if she was able to find out what the issue was when she could not log in. Ms. Azinga said when she spoke to the Commission staff the next day, she was told to put something specific and it was cap sensitive and space sensitive. Once that was cleared up, she was able to log in and submit the report within 15 minutes.

Vice Chair Lum asked if she had logged into her account before. Ms. Azinga responded that she has once before and a Commission staff member was helping her.

Vice Chair Lum asked if she tried anything before 4:30 p.m. on the due date. Ms. Azinga said she attempted as early as 7 p.m.

Associate Director Baldomero stated that on the date of the deadline, there were 149 reports that were submitted. 65 of those reports were filed after 7 p.m. He added that there is a password reset feature with the system. On the date of the deadline, 3 people used that feature to reset their passwords. There were no issues with the system or the password reset feature. He said there was a record of Ms. Azinga calling before the office closed on July 9^th to ask what time the report was due. She could have asked for assistance at that time. Ms. Azinga said she called because she needed to verify the time the report was due since she needed to attend an event. She did not anticipate that she will have problems logging in at that time.

Chair Luke moved to find that the report was submitted late but waive the fine. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Markley. Motion carried (4-0).

New Business
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the fifteen (15) Conciliation Agreements on the agenda were a result of investigations initiated by Commission staff pursuant to HRS §11-314(7) to determine whether there had been a violation of the Hawaii campaign spending laws. She stated that Respondents have been informed in a letter from Commission staff of the violation and have been notified of today’s meeting as well as received a copy of the proposed conciliation agreement. She recommended that the Commission make a preliminary determination of probable cause that a violation had been committed, waive further proceedings, and approve the settlement amounts stated in each of the proposed agreements.

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-01 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Shannon Matson
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requested that they assess a reduced fine from $250 to $83.33. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Commissioner Markley moved to approve the proposed conciliation agreement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-02 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Kymberly Pine
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requested that they assess a reduced fine from $250 to $83.33. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Vice Chair Lum moved to approve the proposed conciliation agreement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-03 – In Re the Matter of Friends of R Ipo Keen
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report and requested that they assess a reduced fine from $200 to $66.67. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Vice Chair Lum moved to approve the proposed conciliation agreement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Markley. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-04 – In Re the Matter of Hoaaloha O Kahala
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report and requested that they assess a reduced fine from $234.16 to $78.05. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Vice Chair Lum moved to approve the proposed conciliation agreement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Markley. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-05 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Joy San Buenaventura
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requested that they assess a reduced fine from $250 to $83.33. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.