Minutes for November 18, 2020 Meeting

Posted in Minutes

Campaign Spending Commission
Zoom Video Conference
November 18, 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

Excused
Deputy Attorney General Candace Park

Guests
Kamealoha Smith, Vicki Higgins, Steve Yoder, Shirlene Ostrov, Steve Holck, Carol Thomas, Mary Monohon, Beau Hawkes, Kevin McDonald, Tracy Fu, Sandy Ma (Common Cause), Blaze Lovell (Civil Beat)

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

Chair Luke went over the rules for this video conference meeting.

Consideration and Approval of Minutes of Meeting on 10/14/20
Chair Luke asked for comments or changes to the minutes. There were none. Chair Luke called for a motion to approve the minutes.

Commissioner Herbert moved to approve the minutes of the 10/14/20 meeting. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Lum. Motion carried (4-0).

New Business
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the sixteen (16) 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. 21-52 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Kamealoha Smith for OHA Kauai Island Trustee – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67.

Mr. Kamealoha Smith was present and stated that it was his first time running for office and that he made some mistakes. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to appear.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-53 – In Re the Matter of Kaonoulou Ranch, LLC
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns an excess contribution of $500 to a noncandidate committee and requests 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 Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-54 – In Re the Matter of Kaapunialiionalanikiekie Kanaloa Aiwohi – Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67. 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. 21-55 – In Re the Matter of Herbert Pualiialoha Ishibashi
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-56 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Romy Cachola
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $2,500 to $833.33. 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. 21-57 – In Re the Matter of Friends for Vickie Higgins 2020
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Final Primary Report and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $200 to $66.67. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Ms. Vicki Higgins was present and stated that she is in agreement with the conciliation agreement.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-58 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Glenn Wakai
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns two (2) failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and one (1) late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $1,250 to $416.67. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-59 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Bud Stonebraker
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns seventeen (17) failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and six (6) late file of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $10,000 to $3,333.33. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-60 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Kelly King
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests 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. 21-61 – In Re the Matter of Melanie M. Salvador
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns an excess contribution to a noncandidate committee and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $350 to $116.67. 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. 21-62 – In Re the Matter of Darren Yamamoto
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns an excess contribution of $500 to a noncandidate committee and requests 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 Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-63 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Micah Pregitzer for Office
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-64 – In Re the Matter of Choose Sue Hughes
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the 2^nd Preliminary General Report and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $300 to $100. 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. 21-65 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Tom Cook
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $1,000 to $333.33. 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. 21-66 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Jade T. Waialeale Battad Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the 2^nd Preliminary General Report and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $547.75 to $182.58.

Ms. Tracy Fu, Treasurer for Jade T. Waialeale Battad, was present and stated that she appreciates the conciliation agreement and thanked the Commission.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-67 – In Re the Matter of Friends of Steve Yoder
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $1,000 to $333.33.

Mr. Steve Yoder was present and stated that this year was his second time running for office. He said there was no reporting requirement for electioneering communications when he ran in 2014. Mr. Yoder added that he attended the Commission’s training, but must have missed this requirement. He said he filed the statement as soon as he was made aware that he violated this rule.

Mr. Yoder shared his concern about the 24-hour requirement to file the statement and stated that he would have met this requirement if the filing did not have such a short turnaround. He argued that it is punitive and that his intent was to always follow the rules.

Mr. Yoder requested the Commission to reduce the conciliation agreement fine amount of $333.33 to $166.67.

Chair Luke asked if Mr. Yoder would like to withdraw the proposed conciliation agreement and pursue a complaint to contest the fine. Mr. Yoder responded that he would like the Commission to consider his request and make a decision.

Chair Luke asked for a motion.

Vice Chair Lum moved to approve the proposed conciliation agreement to reduce the fine from $1,000 to $333.33. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert.

Chair Luke commented that there were many other committees that fell into the same situation as Mr. Yoder. He said the Commission has been discussing the electioneering communication reporting requirements for about 2 years and has been trying to change the law to make it realistic for everyone, but has not been successful.

Mr. Yoder stated that he will pay the $333.33.

Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 20-14 – In Re the Matter of Eric Ryan v. Hawaii Republican Party
Complainant Eric Ryan was not present. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao asked if Complainant Ryan received the access information for this meeting. Administrative Assistant Tumamao responded that it was emailed to him last week Thursday. Chair Luke commented that Complainant Ryan has appeared before in a prior meeting held via Zoom video conference.

Ms. Shirlene Ostrov, Chairperson of Respondent Hawaii Republican Party, asked for the Commission to consider a motion to dismiss the complaint due to Complainant Ryan’s absence. General Counsel Kam recommended such motion be denied because there is no requirement for complainants to show up for a meeting.

Due to Complainant Ryan’s absence, Chair Luke asked General Counsel Kam to lay out the alleged violations set forth in the complaint and the supplemental complaint filed by Complainant Ryan.

General Counsel Kam stated that the complaint alleges various violations of not reporting contributions and expenditures. Chair Luke asked Ms. Ostrov for a response. Ms. Ostrov responded that she stands by the written responses that were submitted to the Commission.

Chair Luke asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Respondent. There was none.

Chair Luke asked for a motion to convene in an executive session pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 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 Docket No. 20-14 – In Re the Matter of Eric Ryan v. Hawaii Republican Party.

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

Public Session reconvened at 11:12 a.m.

Chair Luke asked General Counsel Kam to lay out staff’s recommendations and asked whether Complainant Ryan was present. Associate Director Baldomero responded that he was not.

General Counsel Kam stated that based on both the complaint and the supplemental complaint, he recommended the following:

The Commission to make a preliminary determination that there is probable cause to believe that the Hawaii campaign spending law has been violated;
Assess Respondent a total fine of $500 for failing to report expenditures for the Constitution Day Dinner fundraiser ($250 fine) and failing to itemize the expenditures made to Summit Media, LLC ($250 fine);
Order Respondent to amend the appropriate reports to disclose the expenditures within 2 weeks of receipt of the order;
Order that all administrative fines be deposited into the general fund; and
Order the dismissal of all other claims.

Vice Chair Lum moved to accept the staff’s recommendations. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert.

Ms. Ostrov stated that she wanted to make it clear that Respondent Hawaii Republican Party reported all its media costs during the 2018 election cycle and that everything was accounted for in its reporting. She said the total amount paid to Summit Media, LLC was reported and remains the same. However, the fine is being assessed for not itemizing.

Regarding the Constitution Day Dinner fundraiser, Ms. Ostrov stated that the expenses associated with the event was reported to FEC under the advisement of the compliance company hired by Respondent to ensure compliance with federal and state reporting. Respondent was advised by the compliance company that under the McCain Feingold Law, when there is a get-out-the-vote message and a federal candidate involved, it should be reported to the FEC. Ms. Ostrov explained that she followed the guidance of the compliance experts. She asked to confirm that Respondent is being asked to report it on a state level also.

General Counsel Kam responded that it should have been reported to the Commission even if they reported it to the FEC because Respondent filed a fundraiser notice for this event with the Commission. He continued that for every committee that files a notice of fundraiser, staff will look at the next report that covers the fundraiser date to see if the committee reported expenditures spent on the event or contributions received during the event. He said staff will not treat Respondent any different. He added that because Respondent reported a state event by filing a fundraiser notice, expenses associated with the event should have been reported with the Commission on a state level. Ms. Ostrov stated that she will comply.

Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Mr. Kevin McDonald commented that Respondent is being assessed a fine for a clerical error and that they were not committing a crime or did anything nefarious. General Counsel Kam responded that the Commission’s job is to ensure transparency with campaign spending and when something is not filed, it is not being transparent. He further explained that when the Commission issues a civil fine, it is not suggesting that the violation was committed intentionally. If the Commission believed that there was an intentional violation, staff would recommend that the matter be referred for prosecution. Mr. McDonald said $500 is punitive. General Counsel Kam stated that the fine amounts are set forth in the Commission’s schedule of fine guidelines.

Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 20-15 – In Re the Matter of Eric Ryan v. Oahu League of Republican Women PAC, Hawaii Republican Party and Oahu League of Republican Women
Due to Complainant Ryan’s absence, Chair Luke asked General Counsel Kam to lay out the alleged violations set forth in the complaint filed by Complainant Ryan.

General Counsel Kam explained that the complaint alleges Respondents failed to report property expenses of the office space they share that are being paid by the Respondent Hawaii Republican Party (“HRP”) as in-kind contributions to Respondents Oahu League of Republican Women (“OLRW”) or Oahu League of Republican Women PAC (“OLRW PAC”).

Ms. Carol Thomas, President of the OLRW and Chairperson for the OLRW PAC, was present and introduced herself to the Commission. Ms. Shirlene Ostrov also stated that she is the Vice President of the OLRW, but not in any way part of the OLRW PAC.

Ms. Thomas explained that the complaint alleges OLRW PAC of not reporting the payment of property expenses. She stated that as shown in the City & County records, OLRW is a co-owner of the building and as the co-owner of the building, it paid these expenses directly to the vendors. Ms. Thomas emphasized that this does not have anything to do with the OLRW PAC. She explained that the OLRW PAC is a noncandidate committee which receives contributions and makes expenditures, and such activities are reported to the Commission. Ms. Thomas further emphasized that the OLRW PAC maintains a separate bank account for its activities aside from the OLRW.

Ms. Ostrov stated that HRP has had a 20-year financial relationship with OLRW and as co-owner of the building, HRP agreed that OLRW can pay for whatever it wants. She stressed that OLRW is incredibly careful about separating its activities from activities of the OLRW PAC. She added that even though she is named the Vice President of the OLRW, she has never been invited to nor attended any of the OLRW PAC discussions because of her position with the HRP.

Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions. There were none.

Chair Luke asked for a motion to convene in an executive session pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 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 Docket No. 20-15 – In Re the Matter of Eric Ryan v. Oahu League of Republican Women PAC, Hawaii Republican Party and Oahu League of Republican Women.

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

Public Session reconvened at 11:46 a.m.

General Counsel Kam stated that as explained by Ms. Thomas and Ms. Ostrov, OLRW PAC does not own the property which is equally owned by OLRW and HRP. He explained that OLRW PAC is separate from OLRW. He recommended the complaint be dismissed.

Vice Chair Lum moved to accept the staff’s recommendation. Motion seconded by Commissioner Markley.

Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions. There were none.

Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 21-20 – In Re the Matter of Alberta De Jetley and Alberta De Jetley Campaign Committee
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Alberta De Jetley and Alberta De Jetley Campaign Committee for the late filing of the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Alberta De Jetley is listed as the candidate and treasurer of the candidate committee called Alberta De Jetley Campaign Committee.

Pursuant to HRS §11-341, Respondents were required to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications (“Statement”) within 24 hours of executing a contract for an electioneering communication as defined under HRS §11-341.

On 10/8/20, Respondents filed a Statement reporting a contract with Maui News executed on 10/5/20 for $1,033.76. Respondents had previously exceeded the $2,000 expenditure requirement.

On 10/5/20, Respondent De Jetley phoned Commission staff to let them know that she tried to file the Statement on 10/5/20 but did not receive a confirmation email and that she would keep on trying. To the Commission’s knowledge, the filing system was operating properly and was not able to verify Respondent De Jetley’s efforts. Moreover, Respondent De Jetley was able to file another Statement on that day successfully.

On 10/13/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail of the late fling of the Statement and that a fine of $250 would be imposed pursuant to HRS §11-410. Respondents did not pay the fine amount.

On 10/21/20, Respondent De Jetley phoned Commission staff and asked that a complaint be filed since she attempted to file the Statement on 10/5/20.

On 10/30/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 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 $250, 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.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao asked if Respondent De Jetley was present. Associate Director Baldomero confirmed that she was not, although the access information for the meeting was sent to Respondent De Jetley at her request.

Commissioner Markley stated that it sounds like Respondent De Jetley was having technical issues and recommended that the Commission waive the fine. Associate Director Baldomero stated that Respondent De Jetley filed a total of 15 statements during the election and on this particular day, the Commission received a total of 25 statements including one successfully submitted by Respondent De Jetley. Associate Director Baldomero also mentioned that back in September, Respondent De Jetley encountered a similar issue submitting the statement so she printed a copy and emailed it to the Commission. However, with the 10/5/20 statement, she printed a copy of the statement and mailed it to the Commission’s office which did not get delivered until a later date.

Chair Luke asked for the post marked date of the statement that was mailed. Elections Assistant Vendiola responded that it was post marked 10/5/20.

Commissioner Markley moved to waive the fine. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert.

Chair Luke stated that he is inclined to waive the fine because the statement mailed to the Commission office was post marked 10/5/20.

Motion carried (3-1). Vice Chair Lum opposed.

*Docket No. 21-21 – In Re the Matter of Christopher Lee, Constance Lee, and Friends of Chris Lee
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Christopher Lee, Constance Lee, and Friends of Chris Lee for an advertisement disclaimer violation.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Lee is listed as the candidate and Respondent Constance Lee is the treasurer of the candidate committee called Friends of Chris Lee.

Pursuant to HRS §11-391(a)(1), any advertisement that is broadcast, televised, circulated, published, or otherwise communicated, including by electronic means shall contain the name and address of the candidate, candidate committee, noncandidate committee, or other person paying for the advertisement.

On 9/12/20, the Commission received notice about Respondents’ sign located on Pia and Halemaumau Streets in Honolulu, Hawaii. The sign did not contain the disclaimer as required by HRS §11-391(a)(1).

On 9/14/20, Commission staff informed Respondents in a letter sent via first class mail of their failure to have the proper disclaimer on their advertisement and that a fine of $25 would be imposed pursuant to HRS §11-391(b). 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 voluntarily paying the fine amount by 9/28/20.

Respondents did not voluntarily pay the fine.

On 9/30/20, Commission staff called Respondent Lee to follow up on the status of the fine. Respondent Lee stated that the sign contained a disclaimer as required. Respondent Lee was asked to send the Commission a documentation to show that his sign contained a disclaimer.

On 10/6/20 and 10/16/20, Commission staff called Respondent Lee to follow up on the documentation. Respondent Lee stated that he will email the documentation.

On 10/22/20, Commission staff called Respondent Lee and left him a voicemail that he must submit the fine payment and rectify the situation as soon as possible. Respondents have not submitted any documentation to show that the sign contained a disclaimer as required or paid the fine.

On 10/28/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 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 $25, 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, order that any and all administrative penalties be deposited into the general fund pursuant to HRS §11-391(b) and HRS §11-410(e) within two (2) weeks of receipt of this order, and order that Respondents rectify the advertisement by adding the disclaimer as required within two (2) weeks of receipt of this order.

Vice Chair Lum 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 Markley.

Commissioner Herbert asked about who submitted the notice of Respondents’ sign missing a disclaimer. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that that information is not required so long as a picture is submitted with the date and location of the sign. She further explained that when staff receives such information, candidates are notified, and if the candidate shows that a disclaimer was actually on the sign in question, then staff will recall the violation. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that Respondent Lee did not submit any documentation to show that his sign contained the proper disclaimer, and therefore, the complaint was issued.

Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 21-22 – In Re the Matter of Shannon Burrows, Colleen L. Thomas, and Friends of Smiley Burrows
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Shannon Burrows, Colleen L. Thomas, and Friends of Smiley Burrows for the late filing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report, the 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report, and the Final Primary Report.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Burrows is listed as the candidate and Respondent Thomas is the treasurer of the candidate committee called Friends of Smiley Burrows.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(a), Respondents were required to file the 1B Preliminary Primary Report for the period covering 4/26/20 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 7/14/20, Respondents filed the report.

On 7/17/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail that a fine of $200 would be assessed for the late filing of the report.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(a), Respondents were required to file the 2^nd Preliminary Primary Report for the period covering 7/1/20 through 7/24/20 by 11:59 p.m. Hawaii standard time on 7/29/20. Respondents did not file this report by the deadline.

On 7/30/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail of their failure to file this report and that a fine would be imposed.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(a), Respondents were required to file the Final Primary Report for the period covering 7/25/20 through 8/8/20 by 11:59 p.m. Hawaii standard time on 8/28/20. Respondents did not file this report by the deadline.

On 8/31/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail of their failure to file this report and that a fine would be imposed.

On 9/3/20, the Commission received a check in the amount of $200 from Respondents for the late filing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report. On this same day, Respondents electronically filed the 2nd Preliminary Primary Report and the Final Primary Report.

On 9/4/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail notifying them that a fine of $300 would be assessed against them for the late filing of the 2nd Preliminary Primary Report and that a fine of $200 would be assessed against them for the late filing of the Final Primary Report.

On 9/30/20, Respondent Thomas requested a Conciliation Agreement for the fines assessed against Respondents for the late filing of the 2nd Preliminary Primary and Final Primary Reports which would reduce the combined total fine amount of $500 to $250. Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-45 was prepared and mailed to Respondents as well as approved by the Commission at its 10/14/20 meeting. Respondents were informed via first class mail to sign the agreement and remit the reduced fine assessment of $250 by 10/28/20. Pursuant to the terms of Conciliation Agreement No. 21-45, Respondents were informed that “[i]f this assessment is not paid by the deadline, the Commission will consider Respondent to be in breach of this Agreement and will then assess Respondent the original amount of the fine pursuant to appropriate proceedings.”

On 10/13/20, the Commission received a notice from Department of Budget and Finance that Respondents’ $200 check which Respondents submitted on 9/3/20 to pay for the fine assessed against them for the late filing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report was returned due to insufficient funds.

On 10/14/20, Commission staff called Respondent Burrows and left a voicemail informing her about the returned check and that if she does not call back or resubmit the payment of the $200 fine, a complaint would be filed. Commission staff also called Respondent Thomas about the returned check. Respondent Thomas stated that she will speak to Respondent Burrows and have her call back to either request for a payment plan or pay the fine.

On 10/22/20, Commission staff called and left a voicemail for Respondents to follow up on the outstanding fine as well as emailed Respondents about the outstanding fine and reminded them about the fine under Conciliation Agreement No. 21-45 which was due on 10/28/20. Respondents have not called back to request for a payment plan or paid any of the fines.

On 10/30/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 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 $200 in Count I, $300 in Count II, and $200 in Count III (i.e., $700), 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.

Commissioner 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 Vice Chair Lum. Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 21-23 – In Re the Matter of Donovan Cabebe and Friends of DKC
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Donovan Cabebe and Friends of DKC for the late filing of the Final Primary Report.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Cabebe is listed as the candidate and treasurer of the candidate committee called Friends of DKC.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(a), Respondents were required to file the Final Primary Report for the period covering 7/25/20 through 8/8/20 no later than 11:59 p.m. Hawaii standard time on 8/28/20. Respondents did not file the Final Primary Report by the deadline.

On 8/31/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a letter via first class mail informing them that the Final Primary Report was not filed and that a fine would be imposed.

On 9/20/20, Respondents electronically filed the Final Primary Report.

On 9/21/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a letter via first class mail notifying them that a fine of $200 would be assessed for the late filing of the report.

Respondents did not voluntarily pay the late report fine.

On 10/13/20, Commission staff phoned Respondent Cabebe and left a voicemail message to check on the status of fine payment.

On 10/21/20, Commission staff phoned Respondent Cabebe and left a voicemail message that if fine payment was not received, a complaint will be filed. Respondent Cabebe has not returned Commission staff’s calls or paid the late report fine.

On 11/4/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 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 $200, 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.

*Docket No. 21-24 – In Re the Matter of Beau Hawkes, Vasiliki Antonitsas, and We the People
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Beau Hawkes, Vasiliki Antonitsas, and We the People for the late filing of the Supplemental Report.

In the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent Hawkes is listed as the candidate and Respondent Antonitsas is the treasurer of the candidate committee called We the People.

Respondent Hawkes did not run in the 2020 election.

Pursuant to HRS §11-334(b), Respondents were required to file the Supplemental Report for the period covering 1/1/20 through 6/30/20 no later than 11:59 p.m. Hawaii standard time on 7/31/20. Respondents did not file the Supplemental Report by the deadline.

On 8/3/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a letter via first class mail informing them that the Supplemental Report was not filed and that a fine would be imposed.

On 8/31/20, Respondents electronically filed the Supplemental Report.

On 9/2/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a letter via first class mail notifying them that a fine of $200 would be assessed for the late filing of the report.

On 9/11/20, Respondent Antonitsas requested a Conciliation Agreement which would reduce the fine assessment from $200 to $100. On 9/14/20, Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-33 was prepared and mailed to Respondents as well as approved by the Commission at a meeting on 10/14/20.

On 10/14/20, Commission staff informed Respondents via first class mail to sign the agreement and remit the reduced fine assessment of $100 by 10/28/20.

On 10/16/20, Respondent Hawkes informed Commission staff that he is contesting the fine because he does not think he should have been fined. He stated that he would submit a statement via email. The Commission has not received his statement, but he was present in this meeting.

On 11/4/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 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 $200, 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 Beau Hawkes was present and stated that Respondent Vasiliki Antonitsas, his Treasurer, was not present. He explained that she kept all the paperwork for the committee and that she did a very good job from the very beginning of the campaign to the end.

Respondent Hawkes explained that he did not know about the report until he received a phone call from Associate Director Baldomero that there was a report that needed to be filed. He argued that once he was made aware of this, Respondents filed the report right away. Respondent Hawkes stated that he is contesting the fine from the onset of the fine being assessed because there was no knowingly breaking of the law or willfulness in breaking the law. He further explained that Respondent Antonitsas was under the presumption that Respondents were done filing for the campaign. He stated that Respondents tried their best in all aspects of adhering to all the requirements and asked for the fine to be waived.

Respondent Hawkes also stated that the first notice was sent to an old address. Chair Luke asked if he or any of the officers of the committee took any of the training that was offered and stated that if the committee changed its address, Respondents were required to update that information in its organizational report. Respondent Hawkes responded that Respondent Antonitsas took the training and that they thought they were done reporting to the Commission.

Chair Luke asked Associate Director Baldomero about notifications that are sent to committees prior to a reporting deadline. Associate Director Baldomero responded that the Commission sends 4-5 emails to committees to remind them about the report prior to the deadline date. He stated that the emails were sent to the email address listed on Respondents’ Organizational Report. Respondent Hawkes confirmed that the email address belonged to Respondent Antonitsas.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that the campaign spending law requires all committees registered with the Commission to file disclosure reports until they terminate their registration. It does not matter whether the candidate is running for office during the election period. She further explained that when there is a deadline coming up, staff sends out an eBlast to remind committees. Any notices of a report not being filed are sent to the addresses set forth on the committee’s Organizational Report as required by law, and as Chair Luke stated, if that address is changed, Respondents are required to amend their Organizational Report.

Executive Director Izumi-Nitao continued that with respect to any types of communications or transactions with the office, it is not just Respondent Hawkes, but Respondent Antonitsas as the treasurer of the committee, who is accountable and liable for the violations. Therefore, when Respondent Antonitsas requested a conciliation agreement, the Commission set that proceeding in motion to grant a reduction because she was authorized as the treasurer to make that request. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the Commission does not think this was an intentional, knowing, or reckless violation. If that were the case, they would be looking at a criminal referral. She stated that this violation is being assessed irrespective of intent because it involves a statutory reporting deadline that was not followed.

Chair Luke asked for a motion.

Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions. There were none.

Motion carried (4-0).

Respondent Hawkes argued against the $200 fine. He said he needs to terminate his registration with the Commission but cannot do so if he is assessed this fine. He said he refuses to pay and will not run for office again. He said he will not comply.

Mr. Kevin McDonald commented that there should be more discussion. Ms. Vicki Higgins also made a comment.

Respondent Hawkes said his committee has $5 in its bank account. He requested for the fine to be reduced to $5 so he can use the $5 to pay the fine and close the account to terminate his registration with the Commission. He reasoned that he cannot afford to pay $200.

Chair Luke stated that the Commission already made a decision. Respondent Hawkes asked for a do-over vote. Chair Luke asked the Commissioners if any of them would like to propose another motion. All the Commissioners responded no. Respondent Hawkes stated that he will not pay the fine.

*Docket No. 21-26 – In Re the Matter of Amy Ejercito
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Amy Ejercito for an excess contribution.

Respondent Ejercito was a contributor to IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund, a noncandidate committee registered with the Commission. The contribution limit for IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund is set forth in HRS §11-358 which provides that “No person shall make contributions to a noncandidate committee in an aggregate amount greater than $1,000 in an election.”

Respondent Ejercito contributed to IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund in an aggregate amount of $1,550 during the 2020 primary election period thereby exceeding the contribution limit by $550.

Pursuant to HRS §11-364(a), “[a]ny excess contribution not returned to the contributor within thirty days shall escheat to the Hawaii election campaign fund.”

IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund did not return the $550 excess contribution to Respondent Ejercito within 30 days.

On 10/9/20, Commission staff sent a letter to IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund via first class mail informing them about the excess contribution from Respondent Ejercito and directed them to escheat the excess contribution of $550 to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund pursuant to HRS §11-364(a).

On 10/9/20, Commission staff sent a letter to Respondent Ejercito via first class mail informing her about the excess contribution and that a fine of $350 would be imposed pursuant to HRS §11-410(a). This letter was addressed to the address set forth in IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund’s disclosure report which was then forwarded to her personal residence (rather than her business address) on or about 10/16/20.

On 10/21/20, IBEW Local 1260 Voluntary Political Fund escheated the excess contribution of $550 to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund.

Respondent Ejercito did not voluntarily pay the fine.

On 11/10/20, Commission staff sent Respondent a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 11/18/20 Commission agenda.

Chair Luke asked to clarify that the contributor is being fined even though it was IBEW Local 1260’s responsibility to return the excess contribution in a timely matter. He said he understands that that is the law though it sounds odd. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that it deters contributors from donating more than they are allowed. General Counsel Kam further added that the fine is contained in the Commission’s schedule of fine guidelines.

Motion carried (4-0).

*Docket No. 21-27 – In Re the Matter of Russell K. Takemoto
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Russell K. Takemoto for an excess contribution. She stated that the facts in this complaint are the same as Docket No. 21-26. However, the complaint and the notice about this meeting mailed to Respondent Russell K. Takemoto came back as undeliverable. She asked that this matter be deferred to the next Commission meeting to allow staff to obtain a current address for Respondent Takemoto.

Chair Luke moved to defer the matter to the next Commission meeting on 12/9/20. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (4-0).

Old Business
*Docket No. 21-08 – In Re the Matter of Kevin McDonald and Friends of Kevin McDonald
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that a complaint by the Executive Director had been filed against Kevin McDonald and Friends of Kevin McDonald for the late failing of the 1B Preliminary Primary Report. She stated that this matter was heard at the 9/9/20 Commission meeting and a preliminary determination of probable cause was unanimously approved; however, after this meeting, Respondent McDonald informed staff that he was not aware of the meeting and wanted to be heard by the Commission. As such, Executive Director Izumi-Nitao put the matter on the agenda for today because he was unable to attend the October 14^th Commission meeting per his letter which was given to the Commissioners.

She reported that in the Organizational Report filed with the Commission, Respondent McDonald is listed as the candidate and treasurer of the candidate committee called Friends of Kevin McDonald.

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 7/23/20, Respondents filed the report.

On 7/23/20, Commission staff notified Respondents via first class mail that a fine of $793.75 would be assessed for the late filing of the report. Respondents did not pay the late report fine.

On 8/12/20, Respondent McDonald informed Commission staff that he would like to contest the fine.

On 8/17/20, Commission staff sent Respondents a copy of the complaint and set the matter on the 9/9/20 Commission agenda. The complaint sets forth the date of the hearing and subsequent notices to Respondent McDonald including an email concerning video conferencing further informed him of the 9/9/20 meeting. Nonetheless, Respondent McDonald claims that he did not know and has submitted a letter for the Commission’s consideration.

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 $793.75, 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 Kevin McDonald was present and asked General Counsel Kam if the Commission has the ability to adjust the fine to a lower amount. General Counsel Kam responded that the Commission has discretion on the fine. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the Commission has assessed fines for all late reports and that absent mitigating circumstances, it has not reduced the fine.

Chair Luke asked if Respondent McDonald is eligible for a conciliation agreement. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that Respondent McDonald was informed about the possibility of a conciliation agreement in the notice of fine letter sent to him. Respondent McDonald said he did not know about the conciliation agreement. Chair Luke explained the conciliation agreement process. He asked what the fine amount would be reduced if Respondent McDonald is given a conciliation agreement. Associate Director Baldomero answered $264.58.

Respondent McDonald stated that he used to own a bar in downtown. However, it shut down in January and as a result, has been on unemployment ever since and has little to no funding. He said he filed everything that he needed to file, but missed the deadline for this report. Respondent McDonald stated that he did not know about the deadline until he received a call from Associate Director Baldomero and filed the report right away.

Respondent McDonald stated that his campaign bank account has about $50 left. He said that is all the money he has. Vice Chair Lum asked if the fine can be reduced to $264.58. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that the fine was computed as required by the statute and that procedurally, the appropriate course of action would be for Respondent McDonald to request a conciliation agreement.

Respondent McDonald asked General Counsel Kam if the Commissioners can reduce the fine to whatever amount it wants. General Counsel Kam responded that statutorily, the Commission has the discretion to assess fines, but the matter in how to compute the fine for a late report is provided in the statute. The staff computes the fine based on the statute. The Commission has approved and issued standard fine guidelines pursuant to the Hawaii Administrative Rules. These guidelines are posted on the Commission’s website and followed absent extenuating circumstances. If extenuating circumstances are presented to the Commission, on a few occasions, the Commission has reduced the fine at a meeting; but, he stated that that has been rare.

Commissioner Herbert asked if the fine letter included what the conciliation agreement fine amount would be. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that it does not provide a computed amount, but informs them to contact the Commission’s office. Commissioner Herbert asked Respondent McDonald if he had contacted the Commission office about the conciliation agreement. Respondent McDonald responded that he did not.

Commissioner Markley moved to defer the matter to the next Commission meeting on 12/9/20 to encourage Respondent McDonald to work with Commission staff regarding a conciliation agreement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Herbert. Motion carried (3-1). Vice Chair Lum opposed.

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-36 – In Re the Matter of Mike Ruggles’ Friends for Justice
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the late filing of the Late Contributions Report and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67. It was deferred from the 10/14/20 CSC Meeting to permit Respondent Ruggles to work with staff regarding the contribution. On 10/23/20, Respondent Ruggles informed Commission staff he was guilty of this violation. Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

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

*Proposed Conciliation Agreement No. 21-41 – In Re the Matter of Mike Ruggles’ Friends for Justice
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao explained that this proposed conciliation agreement concerns the failure to file the Statement of Information for Electioneering Communications and requests that they assess a reduced fine from $500 to $166.67. It was deferred from the 10/14/20 CSC Meeting to permit Respondent Ruggles to work with staff regarding the expenditures. On 10/23/20, Respondent Ruggles informed Commission staff he was guilty of this violation. 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).

*Report on 2020 Annual Online Survey
Associate Director Baldomero reported on the results of the Commission’s 2020 Annual Online Survey results. He stated that the purpose of the survey is to help evaluate the effectiveness of Commission operations and communications for fiscal year 2020 (i.e., July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020) as well as provide the Commission with any feedback in areas that we administer and regulate for improvement in fiscal year 2021 and beyond. He made the following remarks:

This was the 9th year of the survey.
The survey was launched on 9/14/20 via the CSC website, Eblast, Facebook & Twitter, and closed on 10/12/20.
Total outreach via Eblast was 1,079 made up of 485 candidate committees, 255 noncandidate committees and 339 public subscribers. CSC’s Facebook and Twitter pages are in the public domain but at the time of the survey launch there were 253 Facebook and 879 Twitter followers. There were also 7,094 visitors to the CSC website during the time the survey was open.
The survey ran for a total of 29 days which is tied with 2013 and 2019 for the lowest number of days that we ran the survey and below the 9-year average of 37 days.
There were 144 total responses which ranks at #1 for the 9 years that the Commission has been conducting the survey (129 responses were received in 2019 with the second highest number of responses occurring in 2016 with 140). 114 or 79% of responders completed the survey to the end.
9 minutes and 16 seconds was the typical time spent completing the survey with the CSC estimating it was going to take 5-10 minutes.
Eblasts were sent on 9/14/20, 9/21/20, 9/28/20 and 10/5/20, and Facebook and Twitter posts were done on 9/14/20, 9/21/20, 9/28/20, 10/5/20 and 10/12/20. The CSC website post remained on the website for the entire 29-day duration of the survey
Survey comprised of 7 sections and 42 survey questions (34 multiple choice, 8 open-ended)

Associate Director Baldomero went through each of the 7 sections of the survey:

1 – Background Information Highlights (6 Questions/144 Responses)

Responders were mostly treasurers or deputy treasurers (60) and candidates (41) from candidate committees (84) and noncandidate committees (40) that reside on the islands of Oahu (81), Hawaii (27) and Maui (20). There were also 18 responses from interested members of a candidate or noncandidate committee not listed on the Organizational Report and 11 responses from members of the public. The responders have a wide-range of experience among the 5 ranges with most falling in the less than 1 year of experience range (42) then the 5-10 years of experience range (35), but overall this was a balanced group that represented different areas of experience.
122 or 85% filed CSC reports electronically, 88 or 61% have been involved in campaign activities, and 81 or 56% made a contribution or loan to a candidate committee so this was an engaged group that was quite familiar with the world of campaigning and campaign finance.
108 or 75% responded that this was their first time taking the survey with 33 or 23% responding that they took the survey between 2-5 times so it seems that this is a group that will offer us a fresh look at what we do. Only 3 or 2% took the survey between 6-9 times.

2 – Communication/Access Highlights (4 Questions/140 Responses)

113 or 81% of responders in this category responded that phone calls or drop-in visits to the Commission’s office was the #1 source for obtaining information from the Commission closely followed by the Commission website (112 or 80%) then Guidebooks and Manuals (100 or 71%), and Eblasts (81 or 58%).
Social media engagement is still lacking with only 21 or 15% following us on Facebook and/or Twitter. Despite that, 99 or 71% were email subscribers who received Eblasts (i.e., so most of the responders came from our Eblast outreach and the CSC website versus Facebook and Twitter posts).

3 – Education/Training Highlights (11 Questions/125 Responses)

31 or 25% of responders in this category attended the candidate committee in-person training and 13 or 10% said they attended the noncandidate committee in-person training with 80 or 64% never attending any training during the year.
40 or 32% viewed the candidate committee cyber learning videos and 18 or 14% viewed the noncandidate committee cyber learning videos with 65 or 52% never viewing any videos. Slightly more responders viewed the cyber learning videos then attended training but there was still a high number of responders that did not do either or felt that the two questions were not applicable to them.
For those who attended training, most of them said that it had been 1-3 years (18 or 14%) or more than 3 years (18 or 14%) since they last attended an in-person training or viewed the cyber learning videos.
70 or 56% have viewed the Candidate Committee Guidebook, 62 or 50% viewed the Treasurer’s Guidebook, and 55 or 44% viewed the Candidate Filing System Manual so it seems that this was the preferable way of obtaining information on the requirements.
Electronically filing disclosure reports (100 or 80%) followed by viewing candidate committee disclosure reports (82 or 66%), electronically filing forms (76 or 61%), accessing guidebooks and manuals (72 or 58%), and viewing reporting schedules (63 or 50%) drove people to the CSC website. This has been consistent for every survey we have published. Overall, it seems that responders are really looking for information to help them comply.
Of the 76 or 61% who said that they use the searchable database, 71 or 93% said it was a helpful tool that was mainly used to search contributor names and how much money they gave to candidates (58 or 83%), and how candidates spent their campaign funds (42 or 60%).
The candidate and noncandidate committee data visualization apps were not as popular as the searchable database with 44 or 35% who said they had used it which is a slight increase from prior years.
Overall the responders were satisfied with what they see on the Commission’s website (111 or 89%)

4 – Compliance/Enforcement Highlights (5 Questions/122 Responses)

68 or 56% of responders in this category said they file their disclosure reports on time with 38 or 31% saying they have not with 38 or 86% saying they only filed late 1-2 times.
56 or 46% of responders said they were fined 1-2 times with 9 or 7% saying they were fined 3-5 times. 43 or 35% said they were never fined.
68 or 56% never entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Commission but 38 or 31% have entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Commission which is on par with being the highest ever compared to prior surveys.
99 or 81% have never had a complaint filed against them with 8 or 7% saying they had a complaint brought before the Commission against them.

5 – Public Funding Highlights (6 Questions/121 Responses)

Only a small number of responders in this category (17 or 14%) have qualified for and received public funding versus 64 or 53% who have not. Of the 17 receiving public funds, 4 or 14% received the maximum amount.
79 or 65% support public funding versus 42 or 35% who did not.
78 or 65% of responders in this category said they would support a general fund appropriation to see public funding continue versus 43 or 36% who said they would not.

6 – Other Highlights (5 Questions/115 Responses)

49 or 43% have been checking off the $3 tax check-off versus 66 or 57% who did not. 98 or 85% knew that the $3 check-off did not affect their tax liability or decrease their refund versus 17 or 15% who did not. It seems that the responders are aware that checking off the box does not affect their tax liability or decrease their refund but they are still not checking the box.
58 or 50% responded that Super PACs were a concern versus 57 or 50% who said they were not a concern. This is the first time that this response was so balanced. The responders that were concerned about Super PACs was considerably higher in the last two surveys.

7 – COVID-19 Closure Highlights (5 Questions/106 Responses)

Since the government stay-at-home order was issued by Governor Ige in March 2020, 88 or 77% of responders said that they were able to obtain answers and assistance by phone with 72 or 63% saying they were able to obtain answers and assistance by the Commission’s website and 34 or 30% by email.
72 or 63% said they were able to obtain answers and assistance on the same day while 17 or 15% said 1-2 days later.
5 or 4% said they attended a monthly Commission meeting by Zoom and 38 or 33% did not know the Commission was meeting regularly.

Associate Director Baldomero stated that the survey results will be posted on the Commission’s website.

Chair Luke asked if there were any comments or questions.

Ms. Sandy Ma of Common Cause asked how the $1.3 million in the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund (“HECF”) may be affected due to the State’s projected budget shortfall. Executive Director Izumi-Nitao responded that the Commission’s budget has not been approved by Budget & Finance, the Governor, and the legislature so it is difficult to know whether the HECF will be affected at this time.

Ms. Ma also asked about the candidates who were contacted by Associate Director Baldomero. Associate Director Baldomero stated that he reaches out to candidates as a courtesy and that he typically does not do so. He further stated that the reason why he called candidates that were required to file the 1B Preliminary Primary Report was because it was a new report. He added that staff also tries to reach out to candidates when there is no response.

Report from the Executive Director
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported the following:

2^nd Preliminary General Report was due on 10/26/20:
- 138 candidate committees were expected to file
- 223 noncandidate committees were expected to file
- 131 (95%) candidate committees filed on time
- 210 (94%) noncandidate committees filed on time
- 6 (4%) candidate committees failed to file on time
- 11 (5%) noncandidate committees failed to file on time
- 1 (1%) candidate committee filed late
- 2 (1%) noncandidate committees filed late
- As of today, 1 candidate committee and 4 noncandidate committees still have not filed

With respect to prior reports, there are 1-3 candidate committees and 4 noncandidate committees that have not filed their reports. A complaint was filed for one and the rest have been referred to the Attorney General – Civil Recoveries Division (“AG-CRD”).

*Update on the Status of the Appointment of New Commissioners
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that she reached out to Ms. Sharon Ibarra with Boards & Commissions and asked her to attend the meeting on behalf of the Commission. However, Ms. Ibarra did not attend the meeting. Chair Luke implored the Governor to make a decision.

*Certification Process of Candidates Elected in the 2020 Election
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao reported that Commission staff will need to certify all elected candidates so they can be sworn into office. By law, certification means that the candidate filed all campaign finance reports and paid all their fines. She went over the swearing in dates for elected officials and stated that staff is working with Office of Elections and the County Clerks’ offices. She stated that Elections Assistant Vendiola will be lead on communicating with the Office of Elections and the County Clerks.

Elections Assistant Vendiola explained that starting 11/17/20 through 1/12/20, she will be sending out a weekly certification memorandum to the Office of Elections and County Clerks which will have a list of elected candidates who do not have any outstanding fines and who have filed their reports so that they can be sworn into office.

*Report on the 2020 Election
Executive Director Izumi-Nitao stated that a memorandum was mailed on 11/6/20 to ballot issue committees informing them about the termination procedures that are applicable to them. She further stated that a memorandum for successful and unsuccessful candidates in the election as well as a memorandum to all $1,000 or less committees will be mailed on 11/24/20, a day after the deadline to challenge the election results. These memos advise committees on their next steps.

EXECUTIVE SESSION
Chair Luke asked for a motion to convene in Executive Session to: (1) Consider and approve Executive Session minutes from the Commission meeting on 10/14/20; and (2) 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 McGee v. Campaign Spending Commission and Friends of Calvin Say.

Commissioner Herbert moved to convene in Executive Session for the aforementioned reasons. Motion seconded by Commissioner Markley. Motion carried (4-0).

Public Session reconvened at 2:04 p.m.

Commissioner Herbert moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Markley. Motion carried (4-0). Meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.

Next Meeting:
Scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 10 a.m.

Campaign Spending Commission

Minutes for November 18, 2020 Meeting

Recent Tweets

About Us

Policies