October 14, 2026 · Ohio Election Integrity Commission · 12,612 words · 4 speakers · 357 segments
Business portion of the agenda. We'll move on to new business. Item 5. The first case is 26C0028, N. Ray Thomas Brinkman et al. It's a settlement agreement. This matter is before us for approval and adoption of the settlement agreement entered into between the complainant, the Ohio Secretary of State, and respondents, Thomas Brinkman, Brinkman Campaign Committee, and Kathy Brinkman, Treasurer, case number 26C0028.
Would a representative of the Secretary of State's office like to speak on this? Thank you, Chair Kreitz. My name is Lisa Taylor. I'm the Ohio Election Integrity Commission Administrator. The Ohio Secretary of State referred Thomas Brinkman, the Brinkman Campaign Committee, and his treasurer, Kathy Brinkman, to the Ohio Elections Commission in November of 2021 for several alleged campaign finance violations. The complaint identified several areas of concern. First, failure to provide the requested information needed to complete or correct multiple campaign finance reports. Number two, receipt of campaign contributions exceeding the statutory limit. Three, failure to provide verification for certain expenditures over $25. And lastly, the alleged conversion of campaign funds for the personal benefit of Thomas Brinkman. The complainant stated that approximately $136,986.67 in disbursements lacked documentation to establish a legitimate campaign purpose or to otherwise verify the expenditures. Following the investigation, the Secretary of State issued a determination on 5-1 of 26 and an amended determination on 5-26. the settlement states that the Secretary of State found by a preponderance of evidence violations of revised codes 351711C, 3517102C3A3, and 351711B, two violations for that. An objection was filed which sent his case to the Ohio Election Integrity Commission. The respondents submit the elements of those violations and acknowledge a factual basis of the settlement. In the settlement, they agreed to pay a total fine of $11,199.65, divided into two payments, the first due on October 1st, the second on November 1st. Importantly, the settlement does not become binding unless approved and adopted by the OEIC. The agreement expressly provides that the commission is not a party to the settlement and retains its authority to make a finding under Ohio law. Upon commission approval, the respondents waive specified administrative proceedings, appeal rights related to the violations. If the full settlement amount is not paid, the commission retains jurisdiction and the matter may proceed to a hearing. In short, this matter originated in 2021, a referral made by the Secretary of State to the OEC. The respondents admitted the violations found by the Secretary of State, agreed to an $11,199.65 fine subject to commission approval. The Secretary of State respectfully requests that you approve and adopt this agreement between the parties. The respondents have already paid the first half on October 1st If the OEIC does not approve and adopt the signed agreement or if the fine is not paid in full by November 1st the case will proceed to a hearing before the hearing officer on November 10th at 1 p.m. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Questions? Ms. Taylor or the Secretary of State?
Yeah, I have a couple of questions, if I might. Just to be clear, you had said that there was an issue of conversion to the respondent, but that didn't, in your summary, but that didn't, as I understand it, that ultimately didn't come into play because at the bottom of the first page, it says the evidence was not sufficient to find a violation of conversion. So as we consider this, there's no issue of converting funds when we think about the reasonableness of this settlement. Is that fair to say?
I believe so, sir. Okay.
And the specific amount in the amended determination notes that there was an excess contribution of $9,999.65. and the fine issued was $11,199.65, which is more or less a little over $1,000 more than this excess contribution. What was the Secretary of State's rationale for the number, which is now in the settlement agreement, for coming to that amount for the fine?
That would be a better question for Director Katz. Director Katz, can you answer that question or how do you want to proceed on this?
Can you repeat the question, please?
Yes.
So the numbers here that I found in the determination, number three says that received an excess amount of $9,999.65. The penalty was $11,199.65. So I haven't done the math yet. It's like $1,200 more or something. So, number one, I connect the amount on page one in part with the fine on page two. I don't know that that's true, but you've got a $99.65 in both places. That seems reasonable to me. but I wanted to understand the rationale for the imposition of the fine that your office imposed, which is now part of the settlement agreement.
Yes, thank you. I believe there were, and please feel free to correct me, I believe there were five alleged violations, four of which were found to be in violation. And so the $12,000 and change number you mentioned would include that $9,999.65, sense, plus an additional, I think you're saying $1,200.
Roughly, yeah.
It would be an exact number, I believe. That is then representing the additional violations for, it's failure to file complete and accurate reports, I believe.
Yes, roughly I think that's fair to say, yes.
And so that additional $1,200 represents those violations.
Okay, and any other explanation?
as to how it came to that number That just seemed to be a fair number related to similar cases Is that a fair representation That would be yes Okay thank you
And then, sorry. Go ahead. I had a question from Mr. Katz. The $1,200, was that derived by a mathematical computation of some sort?
It would have been, yes.
Like $25 a day or something?
It would have been the amount of violations and how many prior offenses, but again, I don't have that in front of me.
Okay. Thank you. So in the future, I would like to see the backup for that. I think it helps guide us. If your office would do that in the future, I would appreciate that.
Thank you for that request.
Okay. Okay, and I see that there's a provision here for the lawyer to sign it, but at least the draft I have, the lawyer hasn't signed it. Can somebody comment on that?
Just to say it was a fun challenge to get as many signatures on it as we received with the parties potentially overseas during some of this proceeding. It was not deemed necessary for the attorney to have signed it once he was the one helping to facilitate the other parties to have signed.
Is he going to sign it or is he not going to sign it or we don't care or you don't care?
I wouldn't refer to it as I don't care. It's not necessary. Just it would not be necessary. We don't believe it's necessary to proceed. They have made the first payment and are expecting to make the second payment here shortly.
Okay, so just so I understand the process, your office issued the determination, an appeal was taken, and then the settlement was reached. Is that right?
There was a hearing scheduled and moved towards the hearing. However, prior to the hearing, settlement conversations through the Attorney General's office and the respondent began, at which point they agreed to pay the outstanding fine and just sought for there to be a timeline to make that payment, of which we found agreeable. And so documenting that proposal as a settlement agreement was done, and we are now here to get the commission to either adopt that settlement or take further action.
Okay, and is it your view, and I guess more importantly, is it the Attorney General's view that we have, it's within our authority to approve this kind of settlement? Because I don't see any provision in the statutes that anticipate this. I mean, as I read the statute 3517.17 at this point, the case is before a hearing officer, and that hearing officer is to do X, Y, and Z, but one of those things is not to issue it, is not to have a settlement at this point. I'm not philosophically opposed to the settlement. I mean, I think that makes, from my own perspective, makes sense, but I'm concerned that there's no provision in the statutes under which we operate to have a settlement at this point.
Ms. Williams.
Yes. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Now you can say it.
I know.
Last time was good morning.
Exactly.
Time flies when you are having fun, right? Yeah so in this situation and in many administrative agencies do engage in settlements and it not expressly in the code sections necessarily or in the rules but in this situation because it is still within the commission jurisdiction to consider the resolution of an administrative matter
That's why it is before you hear.
I did talk with opposing counsel. This never went before the hearing officer. The most the hearing officer knew was that settlement talks were in progress. so there is no report and recommendation. So it's just a different pathway to get before the commission for the commission's review.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions, Sandy? I think that's it. Any other questions, all right, members of the...
The question I have is the respondent present, the respondents present or their counsel. I don't see them. I just want to give them an opportunity. Aye.
They have not. All right, so is there a motion to be made?
Just one question.
Go ahead, Mr. Lyle.
I think it's been said twice. So a payment was already received October 1. We don't have to change the agreement?
Correct. A payment was made on October 1.
Okay, thank you. That's all.
Any other questions, comments?
The other question I have is,
is there a motion to approve and adopt the settlement agreement entered into by the parties in case number 26-C-0028? Thomas Brinkman et al.
So moved.
Thank you, Sandy. We have a second.
Second.
All right. Mr. Lyle, further discussion on the motion? All in favor, aye.
Aye.
Opposed, same sign. Motion carries. All right. For the next three items, how would the commission like to proceed? What we could do is hear from the Secretary of State's office and the respondents, if any, on all three cases, and then consider a motion to enter into quasi-judicial deliberation to discuss all three items in one session, then come back out and a motion individually on each. Is that acceptable to the commission?
Mr. Chairperson, as you know, I have substantial concerns about our jurisdiction in this matter.
Go ahead, sir.
So I sent you an email Saturday. We talked about it Sunday. you gave it to staff Monday. And I'd like, I made copies for my colleagues that don't have it. I apologize that you're just getting it now, but I didn't make a copy for you because you already have it.
That's all right. I've got it on the phone.
Okay, it's just for them. So at least I wanted to have a discussion and hear from the Secretary of State's office and Attorney General's office is to do, are these cases properly before us? Because I have a concern that this is not within the statutory ambit of our charge. My understanding there are about 1,500 cases like this, and certainly when I agreed to do this job, I didn't think we were going to be dealing with 1,500 old cases going back eight years, et cetera.
Go ahead, Susan.
I'm here to address the question regarding the jurisdiction. I don't know if this is something that the commission wants to do in quasi-judicial with considering each of the reconsiderations, but I can address it briefly here as well if that's desired.
Why don't you address it briefly here and let's see where that takes us. Okay. Great. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
I understand it. The question is whether the current Election Integrity Commission is able to consider and deal with reconsiderations or matters that were previously before the old Ohio Election Commission. In short, the answer is yes. And I would point to the statutory language in 3517.17 that allows for the, or contemplates the commission using the penalties from the previous commission when it's making its considerations now. and additionally, I did print out a copy of this from House Bill 96 in the section 525.50. It does indicate that there is pretty much a seamless transition between the Ohio Election Commission and the Ohio Election Integrity Commission in terms of taking over cases, so I'll provide this copy to the Commission. Thank you. It's a partial of the bill because 3,000 pages are too many. Thank you.
Ms. Williams, I just want to reconfirm something that I've asked before and I'm being asked by others. The information that you're sharing with us, the opinion you're sharing, is that you're protected by the attorney-client privilege and should we in fact be in private session? judicial session to protect the attorney-client privilege?
I would suggest that. That's why I wanted to address it briefly here, and then we can go into quasi-judicial for additional questions. Are you comfortable briefly addressing it, and that doesn't waive the attorney-client privilege? For what I'm saying right now, no, because I'm giving that opinion. But for additional discussion and additional questions or any follow-up questions, I would say that would be best handled while in quasi-judicial discussing the reconsiderations, or I can address it in attorney-client privilege memo later on.
after the meeting. We'll follow your lead on it as our counsel. Go ahead.
So that's my short part is that the answer is yes based on the plain language in the bill and the statute. But like I said, if there's additional questions, we can discuss them in quasi-judicial when considering the reconsiderations on the agenda, or I can do additional research and provide that to you after the meeting.
Okay. So I guess I'd like to respond.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Yeah, so, right, so I'm aware of this, and it was in the memo I just gave out to my, or the email I gave out to my colleagues. And the language you're looking at is, on January 1, 2026, any complaint pending before the Ohio Elections Commission is transferred to the Ohio Election Integrity Commission for hearing and disposition in accordance with Division A of section, effectively the new section 3517. Is that right?
Is that which? I would say that the entirety of section 525.50 is what I'm referring to here, but I would also, as I just stated, for additional follow-up questions and discussion, I would recommend that be done in the quasi-judicial in consideration of the reconsiderations, as this would be attorney-client privilege.
Okay, I would rather have this discussion in open session. I understand that may not be the view of my colleagues, so okay.
All right so it your conclusion based upon your research long and short of it is we do have authority to go ahead and proceed today Yes Okay Any other questions of Ms. Williams?
Well, I want to know her rationale because as I read, I think I come to, at least provisionally, I come to a contrary view. I guess I'm, she's the legal counsel for the commission though.
Yes.
I mean, we can disagree, but the bottom line is even though we're lawyers, we're not lawyers for the commission. She is. So, I mean, she's telling us that we can. You can have a difference of opinion.
The bottom line is what matters is what Ms. Williams says.
At least that's the way I interpret it, and I'm not trying to be confrontational in any other way.
No, no, you should be direct. I appreciate that, Mike.
Yeah. Okay, and I have a different view. My view is that we have legal counsel. legal counsel gives us counsel, and we consider that, and then we make our own independent decision. And at least at this point, I think she's mistaken, or at least until we fully flesh this out. I mean, that's a conclusion. I have no rationale for the conclusion other than, well, this is what the statute says, but I think the statute argues against her conclusion, and I want to have a discussion about that. But that's my view. To have that discussion on, does that constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privileges, a question I have. In open session. Could it? Yes. I'm fine with that because I think we should. Do we have a basis to go into executive session to discuss this under 121.22G?
Not for this purpose, no. There's no exception to the Open Meetings Act under that section.
Well, let me ask you this, Ms. Williams.
If we were to go ahead and proceed and take evidence, get information, and then go into quasi-judicial deliberations, could we have this conversation in there and not waive the attorney-client privilege?
Yes, it would be part and parcel to those discussions and deliberations. Okay.
Go ahead, sir.
I'd like to at least put my position on the record.
Please, go ahead.
Okay. So what this statute says is on January 1, 2026, any complaint, pending before the Ohio Elections Commission is transferred to the Ohio Election Integrity Commission for hearing disposition. And here's the key language, I think. In accordance with Division A of Section 3517.17. And when you look at 3517.17, Division A, Division A says, upon the referral of a matter for hearing under Division E3, a second of 35, 17.16, the Ohio and Terry Commission shall appoint an attorney in good standing, and then it goes on, you know, and then there's the, we get the report and recommendation, and then we handle that case. Those, that's the set of cases that we have for us. And those set of cases are not these OEC cases that are seven or eight years old. that were already decided by the old commission. Rather, these apply in terms of pending OEC cases that had not yet been decided by the old commission. Because then, yes, we do take those cases, like the householder cases, and then we follow the statute. We appoint a hearing officer and we do a report and recommendation and we do all that. I do not understand the state legislature as giving us these seven and eight cases that determinations were made by the Ohio Elections Commission Those respondents were told what they should do and how they could fix it and apparently they didn do that It's not for us, then, to follow up on those old cases. What's to be done with them, I don't know, but it's not within our jurisdiction. That's my position.
Ms. Williams, do you have anything further?
Not in the open meeting again, as this would waive attorney-client privilege.
I mean, is this something that the commission goes ahead and tables, these three items, until we've had the written opinion of the attorney general on this?
I believe that's a question for the commission.
It is. I was directing it to the commission.
Oh, okay. That's okay. I'm sorry if I was confusing.
I mean, we could give them 30 days to go ahead and get us something. We have, what, next meetings on November the 16th? Let them get something to us in writing by that point in time. I mean, if your concern is that, you know, we shouldn't proceed until we, you know, have firm ground in that regard, I understand, Sandy. I'm fine with tabling it and getting, I mean, I guess from my perspective, if I'd like to table it.
Counsel, do you have the email that I sent?
I don't believe so, but I can easily get it.
Yeah, so I would ask her to look at the email and consider it, and I'd be happy to, I would like to get a written opinion. I mean, I may well be wrong. Certainly Mr. Katz has corrected me in the past. so I'm happy to have my view changed but I would like it in writing and I would like my concerns addressed so I'm happy to table
I have a couple thoughts on this and maybe I'm jumping the gun but first of all we've got three pending cases here that have transferred from the Ohio Elections Commission motions for reconsideration we have has any of the parties raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction?
They all do.
They all do?
I think they all do.
Okay. How do we, I mean, what I'm reading here under the Ohio Elections Commission section here that we've been provided under this section B2, I guess, section 525.50 B2, B1, B2, Then it continues on, except that's referring to a complaint pending before the Ohio Elections Commission. So that's a pending complaint the way I read this. These aren't pending complaints. These are resolved matters. And then it goes on under Section C, except for the disposition of a complaint pending before the Ohio Elections Commission, any business commenced but not completed by the Ohio Elections Commission or its executive director on January 1, 2026, shall be completed by the Ohio Election Integrity Commission in the same manner and with the same effect as if completed by the Ohio Elections Commission or by its executive director. No validation, cure, right, privilege, remedy, obligation, or liability is lost or impaired by reason of transfer required by this section. It seems to me that everything that was pending before the Ohio Elections Commission and it could be raised with the Ohio Elections Commission comes to us. That's how I read that.
Mr Katz I defer to the chair No that okay Mr Katz Thank you To answer the question no none of the parties have raised questions about jurisdiction We are talking about parties who have outstanding liens against them with the Attorney General office in some of these instances
of which are looking to get this matter taken care of because the old commission levied $25 per day fines on them that have continued to run and or they owe additional interest and penalties. and so they're getting collections letters, I won't call them threatening, but collections letters telling them that in some instances they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes having that money taken from them through the garnishment process. And so we would ask that these cases be moved forward, as well as council does have further information that perhaps she can share with you if you allow to get to that process, because these parties are seeking these matters to be resolved. You don't always have to agree with it. You can absolutely deem no. Reconsideration is not appropriate and to levy the fine as it currently is and tell them they owe $476,000 for missing a little bit of reporting 20 years ago or so. But we would ask that you try to proceed on these matters if you're able to. Thank you.
Excuse me, Councilor Katz, what is the basis for reconsideration?
I'm sorry, what do you mean, what is the basis for reconsideration?
Well, these people have asked for reconsideration.
Yes, the prior commission levied fines without a definite amount to it and just left it hanging outstanding. And so now those amounts have gone to astronomical numbers in many of these cases. and so their method of handling it was through reconsideration. We have not and will not be doing that same unending fine amount so that we don't have to deal with this or no future commission has to deal with this. But sadly, we are presented with a large amount of cases of which people are told by the Attorney General's Office or other collection agencies that they owe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and it needs to be addressed. It is not equitable for these folks. I believe one of them is a $200 personal expenditure is the only expenditure that they had in their entire race, and now it's deemed $175,000 or something of that sort. And this then, if I could, adds finality to the process, adds certainty to the process, and creates a revenue that's actually recoverable. And if I may, Mr. Chair, we could certainly wait for a legal opinion from the Attorney General's office on this issue. But the fact is that the Attorney General's office provided a legal opinion on the record here today in which she said that we have jurisdiction. We could table it and have the same thing be reiterated, but it seems as though our counsel has mentioned on the record that it's their belief, notwithstanding maybe the concern of a commission member, that we do in fact maintain jurisdiction. and we create certainty where it seems as though both parties want certainty. That is correct, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Chair? Sorry. Go ahead.
So I guess I'm confused about the process. So I'm looking at the James Rippenhoff case. Am I allowed to talk about these in public now?
Go ahead.
So anyway, so the letter from Mr. Richter stated that...
Sorry, I would recommend you discuss the cases on the agenda at the time that they're called and you actually have them presented to you.
Well, but this is dealing with your comments to the commission.
And it's more procedural.
Okay, if it's procedural, go ahead.
Because it's...
But we'll get into the facts of the particular cases. Okay, I won't do that. But anyway, this particular letter says unpaid fines are going to be sent to the Ohio Attorney General, okay, for collection. Now, it was my understanding that once a case has been shipped to the Attorney General, for lack of a better term, that it was out of the jurisdiction of the Ohio Elections Commission and it was now at the Attorney General's office and that the Attorney General had the ability and has the ability to try to collect the fine, but if they can't get what the fine is, to work out a deal, basically, whatever that number is that they deem appropriate. And basically you said that's not the case. Am I wrong in what I'm saying here? My understanding is once it left the Ohio Elections Commission, all these cases resided with the Attorney General. They're supposed to collect the fines, and then whatever they work out, I don't remember, I could be wrong, but I don't remember cases coming back from the Attorney General on the old commission saying they owed this much, but now the Attorney General worked out this deal, and now they wanted us to bless it, basically. Am I wrong on that procedure? I'm just trying to follow the procedure.
Absolutely, and it is correct. The Attorney General's Office has authority to settle fines with the state agency, and so the Attorney General's Office, when attempting to settle a case, will contact the state agency, in this instance our office, to discuss a settlement so that we both have to be on the same agreed terms to that settlement. They can't on their own settle the cases. They have to work with us. I believe the gentleman you're referring to has multiple cases, some of which are already with the Attorney General's office. Some are not yet. We were provided, and I don't want to butcher the number, a large quantity of cases that had not yet been referred to the Attorney General's office.
I understand what you're saying. Those discussions probably happened with the old administrator. Correct.
unless I'm wrong I don't believe those cases ever came back in front of us
unless Mike or Carl has a different thought on that to us I think Phil would just say okay work it out and that was it the point is I don't remember those cases coming back to the commission because it was in the attorney general's hands so it would seem to me if this particular case apparently most of them should have been sent to the Attorney General. I can't verify if they were or they were not, but if they were sent there, it would seem to me that you would have, the Secretary of State would have the jurisdiction to basically work these out. I could be wrong, because they're not cases that came from a hearing officer for us to then review. That's just my thought when I look at it. It's not a question that I take. I'm sorry, it's not a question of, you're not asking a question? No, I was. No, I'm just talking out loud. Thank you.
I'm trying to follow the rationale of it. Go ahead.
What is the basis upon which these people can ask for putting the jurisdictional question aside let assume we have jurisdiction What then their basis to ask us for reconsideration When you say the basis you mean what the reason that they doing so No, no, I understand. They want to reduce the fine. I understand why they want to, but on what basis can they ask us for reconsideration? We have a provision in our administrative code for reconsideration. In my view, that code does not apply to these cases. The letters, generally speaking, talk about reconsideration, but that's under the old commission. So on what basis can they come and ask us for reconsideration? Is there any time limit within which they have to ask? Is there any notice provision given to them to ask for reconsideration? What are your thoughts in that regard?
Those are great legal questions that your legal counsel is prepared to answer for you when you allow her to. Okay.
I'll check you out. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. All right. Any other questions, comments, thoughts? Do we have any emotions? So are we ready to proceed then on the Brepenhoff, Hafer, and Walker cases?
Well, I would like answers to my legal questions.
Okay.
I would go back, Mr. Chair, to what you had initially said. or suggested about tabling this until we had a legal opinion from the Attorney General. I think that's the prudent thing to do.
Is that a motion?
It is. I'll second it.
We have a motion to table. It's been seconded. I think it's really, really important that, first of all, I'm sure based upon what I've heard that we probably have a legal basis to go ahead and do this. I certainly trust what our legal counsel has told us. I don't think it ever hurts to double check and re-verify. Say you have some cases, some ideas, Sandy, that you're going to go ahead and send to our legal counsel?
No, it's just the email I sent to you.
Well, but have you sent it to her is what I'm saying.
No, she said she'd get it.
Yeah.
I mean, they all have it.
I also think it's really important that we move these cases as quickly as possible and they've been sitting here in a long time. So I want you to know that I'm not satisfied that we have to sit here today and table this thing and continue it for maybe 30 days. But I think out of an abundance of caution, I think it's good to be safe on this. I would appreciate having a written opinion from our legal counsel on this before we proceed. Thoughts on that? Before we entertain a motion? No, and I would just like not only the jurisdictional question, but the questions I just raised in front of Councillor Katz about what's the basis upon which they can ask for reconsideration. Okay.
Yeah.
Do we have...
Well, we have... Mr. Chair, I believe we have a motion with a second to table these until we have a legal explanation from the Attorney General's office. I think that's before us.
It certainly is. And we're at the stage where we're taking evidence, I think, to determine how we're going to vote. Ms. Merriman has approached, and I think she wants to say something. So go ahead, ma'am.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we would just like some clarification regarding the question of your jurisdiction. Are you indicating that you don't want and it's not proper for you to see these reconsiderations and that the Secretary can handle this ourselves?
Or is there a different question in your mind that we need to look at Go ahead Chair So that good I guess a good clarifying question From my perspective 3517 is the direction from the state legislature about the kinds of cases we have. And the particular kinds of cases right now is we're talking about the basket of cases from the old commission to us. And I did not provisionally, subject to being convinced otherwise, I provisionally did not understand these reconsideration cases to be part of that basket. And the reason is because it talks about our jurisdiction. When you operationalize the statutory language, It's only those cases that for which the old commission hadn't made a decision. And so those old cases we had to make, et cetera. So it's that distinction that I'm looking for. I have no opinion one way or the other. If it's determined we need to take these cases, then I will happily do that. So it's not a matter of what I want or what I don't want. It's what we are statutory obligated to do. And then the second question is, there are these motions for reconsideration, and I don't understand the legal basis for making such a motion. There are two places where I see the concept of reconsideration. One is in our administrative code. That does not seem to apply. And the other is in the letters that were sent to these people, quoting reconsideration under the old commission. But certainly that's not whatever you could do for reconsideration of the old commission, which apparently wasn't done by these people, by the way, is not reconsideration under us. So under what basis do they have the right to ask us for reconsideration? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, if I could ask a question.
Sure, of course.
Is there a distinction between this being a settlement and a reconsideration? I would characterize it as a compromise. Commissioner McNair pointed out very well we do have the reconsideration rule. I don't think we are considering these really as reconsiderations as he has raised. That's probably a bad term for it. It would be more of a compromise. In other words, this is the amount that was due. There's no redetermination as to the violation. It's just a compromise of the amount that's being paid. Yes, and I think Director Katz was talking about this, and Commissioner McNair brought it up. You know, we inherited 1,500 of these cases where there was a disposition, but things weren't sent over to the Attorney General's office, so they've been sitting there. We decided we would send out letters to these individuals, A, to let them know just because the prior commission was abolished, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card. They still owe. And also to alert them to the fact that if they don't pay, this is going to go to the Attorney General's office. These people then reached out in some cases, and I don't have all the specifics of the facts, but in some cases saying, I thought this was resolved. As Director Katz said I been assessed several hundred thousand dollar fine and I was late 30 days So we looked at these and again I mean not wanting like you said not wanting to you know burden you with this Look at this and try to resolve these in a matter that efficient for you and also, you know, efficient for these individuals that in some cases have had this hanging over their head for a long period of time. The Attorney General's Office, the collection section, or the collection statutes, as you know, sir, talk about when the money and when the fines are due and payable. So there is jurisdiction or there is discretion with the agency before it gets sent over to the Attorney General's office to compromise these claims. And that's really in effect what we were trying to do, A, to save the work, the time, the effort, and also to keep this process moving because we did inherit quite a bit of matters that, you know, we need to resolve for everybody's sake. And so the Secretary of State's office is really just looking for our blessing on the compromises that were reached on prior claims that really lack certainty as to the amount due. And in some senses, we're completely unable to be paid because they were so excessive.
Absolutely. That's correct. Thank you. And, Ms. Merriman, so you're saying, because on the agenda it says reconsideration.
I understand. That probably was a misnomer, sir.
So you're saying it should be called what?
I think I would consider them compromises, compromise of a claim, compromise of a settlement. It's not really a settlement.
And then are you saying that all 1,500 cases were never sent to the Attorney General? Every one of them?
There was a large amount. I don't know specifically the number. But there could be some that were sent to the Attorney General.
Correct, correct.
There could have been some that were sent.
All right. That wasn't what you said, though.
Yes. No, some weren't. There are definitely some that were never sent over.
I understand.
There's some were.
Okay.
And then there's the combination.
It would be nice to have those numbers.
Okay. Sure. We can provide that.
How many were actually sent? Because it makes a difference in jurisdiction, I think. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Go ahead. Yes.
Council Member, what I'm about to ask about aren't really legal questions, but I think if folks do have the opportunity to ask for us, however we discuss it as a compromise or reconsideration or whatever, if that's an opportunity for people, I think it should be stated in the letter that they're sent. my understanding in talking to staff yesterday is a number of letters have been sent some of the people have paid, some people have asked for a compromise, others have not and I'm concerned that those people that have not maybe didn't do that because they didn't know they could so I think, at least from my perspective and that's something we need to talk about. The letter should be redrafted to give people notice, and we should set some time limit by which they can ask for that. That's kind of one comment. Another comment is I did talk to a couple of staff yesterday. In one case, I asked, well, how much is owed, and a number was given, and I went back and tried to calculate that number, and I came up with a very different number. So what I'm asking is when these cases do come before us, I'd like to have some idea of how much it is we are compromising. And that may be way excessive, and we may all agree to that. I would just like to know what that number is. And finally, frankly, for our protection, I want to know what the Secretary of State's substantive position is on these requests. The Secretary of State was highly critical of the old commission about not collecting. and if we are going to be criticized for compromising claims, I would like to know that in advance or at least know the Secretary of State's position on those cases. So I'll say, yes, this is good for whatever reasons and it would also, I think, give us some helpful guidance in terms of our own decision making. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any other questions, Mr. Chairman?
I have a question, Mr. Chairman. If we were to call these offers a compromise, basically, to resolve outstanding issues, are the, we'll call them settlements between the parties, is that something that has to come before the commission, or does the Secretary of State's office have the authority to compromise these matters without coming to the commission? That was my opening clarification request to you. I think our position is that we do have the authority to do this, It was our understanding that you had wanted to sign off on these, so that's why we're bringing them. Perhaps that's for further discussion as we come up with a process, a policy on how you would like that done. But again, we would discuss with the Attorney General's office. I think I understand her position, but you've requested her to provide a position to you so we can discuss that. So these matters, these compromises, could be handled or approved by the Secretary of State? would have to come to the commission? I believe they can, yes. Yes, I believe they can. I would say, Mr. Chair, if a matter was not pending with the Ohio Election Commission and then transferred over to us. That's a different situation. If it's an older matter that predates that and it's simply a business decision as to whether the compromise is in the best interest of the state of Ohio, So if we have the authority to allow the Secretary of State's office to make that decision, I have no objection to it. If I may, I see a distinction between us approving a settlement in the Brinkman case, for example, where if we do not approve that, it is scheduled for an adjudication then at that point in time, and the matter proceeds. These matters are done.
Correct.
They've been fully adjudicated. There's a fine in the levy that's been assessed that has been accruing, and I think that it is within the purview of the Secretary of State's office to be able to say, okay, it's in the best interest of the state. Let's adjudicate this. Let's resolve it. Let's compromise it without having to come back to the commission. That's kind of how I see it, but I am open to further counsel from counsel.
I would agree with that.
Yeah, it's a unique situation for sure. As we've already talked today about the legislation. Yes.
So what action, if any, would we take if we wanted to send these back to the Secretary of State for handling?
As Director Katz said, we would love to get these three that are on the agenda resolved because they have been hanging over these individuals' heads if you're not comfortable with that. And if you would like to have further research done and speak with Heather happy to do that Are you convinced Ms Merriman that we have jurisdiction to handle these I believe you do yes Okay
Thank you. All right. How do you want to proceed, guys? We have a motion on the floor to the table.
I'm prepared to withdraw my motion to the table in light of the conversation we've had. But with all due respect to my fellow colleague, I don't really find myself in agreement with him. But having said that, I think it's important he's raised legitimate questions and concerns that I think need to be resolved so that these issues don't continue to hang over. If we're going to continue to go ahead and handle these cases, if we're going to send them back to the Secretary of State's office, allow the Secretary of State to handle, then I think the issue's probably moved. but if they're going to be coming back to us, I think that we need to get a final resolution. I think we need to get a written opinion, which I think will probably be favorable to us so that we can continue to act upon that. So that's kind of where I am. Can I just ask Council Merriman one additional question in terms of process? If the Secretary of State, the State Secretary of State has jurisdiction, tries to work through these cases, works through whatever cases, now they cannot be worked out. From your perspective, the respondent is being unreasonable. Then would the Secretary of State simply refer that to the Attorney General's office?
Yes.
Okay, thank you. So for a point of clarification, I guess, and make sure I'm understanding what we're needing to do, So there's a question with regard to jurisdiction associated with matters that are coming back to the Ohio Election Integrity Commission from the Ohio Elections Commission for matters that are not pending complaints, like the House floor matters. We have jurisdiction over those. And I believe that they're not on the merits of the matter. It relates to the amount that is due. That's my point of clarification. Exactly. We're not being asked to reconsider the merits of any of these cases. And so to that extent, it's not a motion for reconsideration or not a consideration at all. It's really an offer and compromise to resolve a pending debt that is owed, which I don't think would come to us in any event. So from my perspective, I think we can resolve these three pending matters here today, still obtain a legal opinion on jurisdiction and motions for reconsideration if those are brought before us, but I don't view this as that. So I think we can resolve these three issues today without having to get into jurisdiction and merits. If I could, Mr. Chair, I think maybe to dispense with all of it, and if we have discussion on this motion, I'd like the Secretary of State's input. but I think it would be reasonable to dispense with the entire matter and say to the extent that these matters, any matters, were not pending with the Ohio Elections Commission at the time of the transfer, but predate that, that we would permit from our perspective the Secretary of State to make those decisions in the best interest of the state of Ohio. I don know that they need to come before us in our docket including these three matters I would agree with that If that would be legally appropriate And that would be my motion.
Well, we have a motion to table, I believe, that's been seconded.
I'm the motion to table, but I withdraw my motion to table.
Second, go ahead and withdraw it. Who seconded it? Who seconded it?
Was it me or? Was it you, John? Might have been John.
I'm confused. I thought Sandy made the motion.
You had a suggestion. No, let's go back. You made a suggestion and I said I'd like to make a motion based on your suggestion that we table it and we get a response from the Attorney General. That's where I believe it was. Okay, so you made the motion and the second was Sandy.
I believe. Okay. So then I guess it's so we can dispose of that motion one way or the other.
But isn't that what we're saying here in this discussion?
Do you want to keep the motion?
Isn't it the same thing you're saying? No, I don't think so.
I think your motion is to obtain a legal opinion from the Attorney General's office with respect to this matter. With respect to this matter in our jurisdiction with respect to cases like this.
That's right.
Yes, that's my motion.
so we know going forward that it is within our purview to actually make a decision on them.
And Sandy, did you second that?
I think I did, yes.
You did, okay. So, again, John, what you're looking for is an opinion from the Attorney General's office, right?
Yeah.
And can we proceed under that motion, assuming it's successful? Does that still allow us to go ahead and proceed on the three cases that we have here today?
Well, I'm a little concerned that we have the jurisdiction to go forward on these cases.
Okay.
Well, maybe the easiest way to resolve this is... I mean, I'm assuming that since we have what at least I call them compromises, that the clock isn't going to start ticking and that these people aren't going to be forced to pay more fines. I mean, if the Secretary of State can make the decision or we can make them, we're still not going to jack up the fines. So I don't see any liability with respect to these folks.
Okay.
Does that make sense?
Okay. So you have a motion to table for those reasons. It's been seconded by Sandy. Neither one of you are willing to withdraw the motion. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion and proceed accordingly, okay? That's fine. So we have a motion that's been laid out to table, been seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed, saying nay.
Nay. Nay.
That's three to two. That's three to two. I couldn't hear. I'm sorry. Okay. All right, so the motion to table is defeated, and now we'll move on with discussion how we want to dispose of the three. We want to go ahead and have the Secretary of State go ahead and present each of the three cases to us and then we'll go back and debate and come back out and vote on the individual or do we want to just go ahead and take one case at a time?
Could I make a motion and we can discuss it, but as I indicated, we may dispense with all of it.
All right, go ahead.
The statute refers to complaints pending before the Ohio Elections Commission, which are then transferred to the Ohio Election Integrity Commission. All right. Any cases that predate that, in other words, cases that weren't pending in process with the Ohio Election Commission including the three reconsideration matters that are on our agenda I would move to provide the Secretary of State the authority to arrive at compromises in those matters and therefore to not place those matters on our docket.
Do we have a second?
I'll second.
Discussion on the motion?
If I may, Mr. Chairman. I support that motion. As I stated earlier, these are not settlements that require our approval as I see it because these are not matters that if we did not approve of the settlement would then be adjudicated before this body. These are fully adjudicated matters that are simply subject to collection by the Secretary of State's office. and the Secretary of State's office has the authority, in my opinion, to be able to collect those matters or compromise a collection of those matters as is deemed appropriate in the best interest of the state of Ohio. I don't see that there's anything for this body, this commission, to do with regard to these previously adjudicated Ohio Elections Commission fines. I don't see that this body has anything to do with regard to those as it's been resolved. And I think that the Secretary of State's office has the authority to collect on it as appropriate.
Would this motion apply to the three cases that have been sent to us for the day?
I did specifically state that, yes. They would. And I don't need anybody from the Secretary of State's office to approach. I would just say that my understanding is that the Secretary of State's office would approve and be amenable to that solution. If I'm incorrect, I'd appreciate it if someone approached.
Good afternoon again. Thank you. So just what you're considering at this moment is giving large authority to our office. So right now, it is the potential that a future secretary would be able to dismiss, in substance, dismiss cases that the commission has decided, having just waived fine amounts in the future. We believed that bringing them in front of the commission was the most fair and equitable manner in bringing openness to what is really the potential decisions on these cases. Once they are referred to the Attorney General's office, it is agreed that it's up to the AG's office and the state agency to make compromises because sometimes those amounts do grow into excess with the penalties and interest, as well as just the fine amounts themselves may be deemed to be too large for someone to be able to pay, and so compromise is required. However, who chooses to make that compromise is, I believe, what we're now debating. It has been our position before that we're trying to establish policies and procedures, not for us today, the people who are doing it, but to make sure that it's a lasting process that is fair and equitable to all. And so it would be our opinion, and that's why they're on the agenda for the commission, for it to be done at an open meeting by a bipartisan group to reassess whether or not the fine, as you know it today, is equitable for those situations which at times are 20 years old or more. I do believe the prior commission did reconsiderations, having been made aware of them sometimes after the fact, in those cases where those fine amounts grew considerably. And so just it would be our desire for the commission to hear the argument, the information, determine what is equitable based on the circumstances presented to you, not reconsider the actual substantive arguments that should have been presented and resolved long ago, but determine just simply, if we want to start calling them compromises, what should that amount be to help bring finality to these situations. Otherwise, if you choose not to and put that upon the Secretary of State's office, I would say today I will, and in the future they will, but that's not something that anyone outside of our office and the Attorney General's office would ever know about. And so just we believe that this is the more open, fair, and equitable position to have a bipartisan organization making those decisions.
So if I could dig in just a little bit here, you're talking about monetary recoveries for fines that were established by the Ohio Elections Commission prior to the existence of the OEIC. All amounts owed to the state of Ohio on behalf of fines, whether they were the OEC or now the OEIC, yes. And I guess maybe my understanding veers from what you're expressing here because I wouldn't anticipate a high volume of decisions. These are older cases for which fines have not been paid and not recovered, and now the Secretary of State's office is reaching a settlement, a compromise, some sort of understanding is simply the amount due. We're not talking about the merits of the matter. Agreed. And so the pitfall from your perspective with us giving that, and I'm happy to withdraw the motion if it's the will of the body, what's the pitfall associated with delegating that authority to the Secretary of State's office?
That it then becomes a single executive office that gets to make those decisions unilaterally. And so while today we are working with the parties to come up with what we believe to be a reasonable outcome, we are still presenting it to a bipartisan body to hear that and to help make that determination instead of it just being a single office holder that gets to, in effect, change prior decisions. I would appreciate your perspective on one thing.
I heard 1,500. I don't know if that's true. I see three. A number. I see three on our agenda here. The volume doesn't concern me. If it's the appropriate way to handle it, we're happy to deal with the volume. What would you anticipate? I know this is an imperfect science. Is this going to be a significant part of agendas on a going forward basis?
I would not believe so. At this point, we have sent the letters to the parties to notify them because what we are discussing are those cases that we believe were not sent over to the Attorney General's Office for collections. And so we sent them a notice that your case has been seemingly transferred to the OEIC for the sake of prior to that referral for collections, giving them an opportunity to make payment so that there aren't additional fees and interest added upon those dispositions. Some of the parties, it is unclear whether or not
they even received notice of their decisions long ago. But that aside, those went out, I'm going to say months ago at this point. On Moss, let's recover, and you get some responses, and you don't. Okay Well look I have a lot of respect for that viewpoint and if the Secretary of State office is saying that we represent a good check and balance for these compromise determinations I happy to and will withdraw the motion I will draw a second Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Katz. So, Mr. Chair, if I may just add a couple things. So, Mr. Katz said that we did hear reconsiderations. I don't disagree with that. My point was we didn't hear reconsiderations after they went to the Attorney General's office. We had reconsiderations with cases that were hanging around, and the staff tried to get in touch with the folks or things would go back and forth, whatever. Cases languished, I understand that, but the point is they weren't the cases that were sent to the Attorney General. At least that's my understanding, number one. Number two, Mr. Chairman, you had admonished Mr. McNair that he had his own legal opinion, but it wasn't the opinion of the Attorney General. And with due respect to my two colleagues here that are making their legal opinions, it is not the legal opinion of the Attorney General because we haven't received anything from him. So I think it's prudent for us, and it's the right thing to do is to ask for, and I hope that's what we're asking for, is a legal opinion from the Attorney General if these cases are in front of us. That's all I'm saying. And if they say they are, then let's have them. But, you know, if we have 1,500 cases and we only get five of them, 5% of them, that's still 75 cases. And I don't have a problem, but I just, let's be real with the numbers, right? So they say there may be a few. 5% of 1,500, I'm just doing the math off the top of my head, that's 75 cases. So we could have a number of cases, in my opinion, coming before us that will be very similar to these. And I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem. If we do the work, we do the work. I have no problem staying here and doing the work. for having more meetings, whatever it takes. I mean, so I still think we should get the legal opinion from our attorney. That's my opinion. Thank you, sir.
Thank you for that comment. Just as a reminder, you have received a legal opinion from your attorney. She spoke at a public meeting, giving you the synopsis, the summary of it, stating that you do have authority to proceed on these matters. You might not have a written opinion from her or them yet, but you have received legal advice from your counsel regarding these matters. Thank you, Mr. Counsel.
Just a matter of clarification, not to be too wordsmithy. Typically an opinion has reasons behind it. We've gotten the opinion that's true that we have jurisdiction. I'd say that's a conclusion. We don't really have a reasoned presentation for that conclusion. Kind of where I am is, in summary, at least three folks want to move forward. I would be inclined to move forward on these three cases, but then still ask for the legal opinion. That's kind of where my head's at.
All right. So I guess did Sandy pretty much summarize the position of the board then at this point is that we go ahead and proceed with these three matters this afternoon and we seek a written opinion from our legal counsel which I think we already done
We've at least requested it. I'm fine with that.
That motion was denied.
Yeah.
The motion to get a legal opinion.
It was.
Okay.
I make a motion to get a legal opinion as to our jurisdiction and the basis for people asking for reconsideration, and I move that we consider these three cases on the merits. That's my motion. I'll second that. Okay.
Discussion? All in favor, aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carried.
All right, so let's go ahead and regroup a little bit. We have three cases before us that are labeled denominated reconsideration. There could be some question as to whether that term is actually accurate or not. Do we want to handle all three together at one time, or do we want to take each case individually? I guess I'd like to take each case individually, but at least with the first case, ask some general questions that then we can maybe get through the others quickly. Anybody object to that? Okay, the first matter then is case 2017-S-007, N. Ray James Reepenhoff et al., for reconsideration. Ms. Taylor, does the Secretary of State's office have any information to present?
Yes, sir. The Reppenhoff for State Representative Campaign et al. failed to file the 2015-2016 annual reports. A complaint was filed with the OEC by the Secretary of State in April of 2017 for failure to file those annual reports. On 12-6-18, the case went before the OEC, which found violations of 35-17-13-D and imposed a $25-per-day fine commencing on the date the report was due and continuing until the report was filed. The respondents have now filed a motion for reconsideration with the OEC. At the time the motion was filed, the 2015 annual report was 3,856 days late, resulting in a $96,400 fine. The 2016 annual report was 3,488 days late, resulting in an $87,200 fine. the two fines totaled 183,006 for a committee with no activity since 2012. Mr. Reepenhoff is now deceased, leaving his campaign and treasurer, Ms. Tommy Harless, responsible for the fines. On 8-5 of 26, the Secretary of State's office sent out a transfer of case and collection letter to Treasurer Tommy Harless. She spoke with our office in August of 26 regarding the matter. She indicated that in November of 17, she was working with the Secretary of State to correct and submit the required reports. She further said that after speaking with Campaign Finance, she should have terminated the Reppenhofer State representative entity in 2012 Ms Harless has offered to resolve the case The Secretary of State agrees that for these violations is excessive and respectfully requests that Ms. Harless's offer to be settled considered. I do want to note that she's an administrative assistant in Jackson County. She said she had sent all applicable documents to Mr. Riefenhoff prior to his death and would like to resolve the matter. Thank you. Questions? I have just a question. Go ahead, sir.
So, Lisa, will this close the campaign fund?
Yes, sir.
And do we know is the fine coming out of what's currently in the campaign fund or out of this woman's pocket?
As far as I know, it's out of her pocket, but I don't know that for sure.
All right. I mean, we should know that because they can pay fines out of their campaign funds, obviously. But we should know if there's anything in there. because that is quite a burden to somebody that's working in her capacity.
There were no campaign contributions or expenditures after 2012. So I don't know. I'd have to get that information.
Okay.
Any other questions? Go ahead, Senator.
So the Secretary of State thinks this is a fair and reasonable settlement overall?
Yes, sir.
Okay. The document that I have here that was attached to this complaint to how the Elections Commission shows a balance on hand as of one, it was 2020-12, report date 8452-36, $8,400. Do we know if those funds are still there?
I do not know, sir.
I read that as a negative number. I wasn't sure. Has expenditures of that number that you just read? I didn't know if it was a smudge on my marking. I couldn't tell.
It shows no assets and expenditures of that amount, and then balance on hand is a minus 84, 52.36.
I assume it was in hock. Sure.
I was not able to open it. I just couldn't tell, honestly, if that was an error on my printer.
No, it looks like a negative just looking at it. The question is, is it on the other ones?
It appears as though it was.
Okay, thank you. Ms. Taylor, does this case, this proposed resolution,
then resolve all cases for the respondent? Yes, sir.
Okay. Okay, she was the treasurer, correct?
Yes, sir.
So she still is responsible even though the individual is deceased?
Yes, sir.
If I may, did you have any discussions with her about what a reasonable amount would be?
That's what she proposed, sir.
Wow. Okay.
All right. Is there a respondent? Is there a respondent here or a representative of the respondent?
No, sir.
I don't see them, but I just want to make sure.
Okay. All right, other questions of Ms. Taylor?
So I guess the question I'm having, I understand she's proposed that, but based on what you said and what she does for a living, and it doesn't appear there's any money coming into the, or in the campaign fund, I just think that's a lot of money for somebody and I know from my experience looking similarly situated individuals who just basically missed a deadline or two I don't recall anything where we find them that high this was a first offense and I apologize but as you know because I sent you the email I wasn't able the way you sent them I wasn't able to open everything I printed out what I could but I didn't have this part of it apparently that file was too big on my laptop to open up if I may
if there's going to be discussion about the merits of this negotiated compromise I would recommend this be discussed in positive judicial. But getting facts is one thing, but starting to opine or determine how the settlement is.
Fair enough. I got you. So is it your suggestion
we get the facts on each case and then go
into executive session? That would be my
recommendation, yes. Okay. Thank you.
I have a couple more factual questions. Sorry. So this was a failure to file 2015 annual report due January of 2016, as well as a 16 failure to file in 2017. But there's a note here that it looks like the campaign should have been closed in 2012.
Am I reading that right?
Yes, sir. So did she file then in 2013, 2014, 2015?
It's my understanding after so much time the boards won't even refer them anymore, but she recognized the fact that she should have terminated the campaign.
Okay. So when would she have first known of an error, most likely?
I know we're just surmising here.
I don't know that, sir.
Okay.
There was discussion, though. I mean, she knew something was awry, and she tried to make it right and indicated she had sent everything she had as treasurer to the candidate, and she doesn't know where that information is now. Do we know when he passed away?
I did. 2025, I think.
2025, yeah. Okay. Okay.
Any other questions? The question I have of the commission is do we want to go ahead and collect all the facts with respect to each of the three cases and then do one motion to enter into quasi deliberations or do we want to do a motion to quasi deliberation after each set of facts
I would vote for the former. I would, too. All right, that's good.
So then if there's no other questions with respect to the Riponoff case, I will call 2018 R-494 William Hafer et al. Consideration, Ms. Taylor?
Yes, sir, thank you. The committee to elect Hafer campaign was referred to the OEC by the Hamilton County Board of Election for campaign finance violations. Revise Code 351713D, failure to file the 2019 annual report. Revise Code 351713C for failure to file the 2015 post-general. Revise Code 351713D for failure to file the 2016-17 annual reports and Revise Code 351713D for failure to file the 2018 annual report. In 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the Hamilton County Board of Election filed complaints with the OEC regarding the missing 2015 post-general and the 2016, 17, 18, and 19 annual reports. In each case, the commission found a violation and assessed a $25 a day fine for the first two, which ended up being $7,350. I'm sorry, $7,350 plus $25 a day for the third, $36,300 plus $100 a day for the fourth complaint. Due to the $25 per day per diem fines and additional fines, his committee ultimately owed $476,925, even though the committee only spent $200 on the election.
How much? I'm sorry? Spent how much?
$200. In response, Mr. Hafer talked with our office. On 9-16-26, Mr. Hafer filed a motion with the OEIC requesting consideration for the respondent's fine amount. As of 6-26-26, all reports have been filed. He recently won a jackpot at a casino, and upon its investigation into outstanding debts, the casino withheld $1,900 from his winnings. Mr. Hafer had indicated he would like to resolve his case fairly and reasonably and paid another $250,000 in good faith to have it reconsidered. The Secretary of State agrees that $476,000 is excessive and respectfully requests that Mr. Hafer's offer to settle his case be reconsidered. On a side note, he's a 76-year-old man who recently suffered a brain tumor and, again, only had $200 in his account. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if I could. Yes. The total amount paid was $1,900 plus $250?
Yes, sir.
So, okay, $2,100. What was the exact amount that's been paid?
In his fine?
Correct. $400,000?
No, no, no. That's been paid. Oh that been paid All of that has been paid Also from the For the casino and he paid another to have his case reconsidered
So roughly $2150?
Yes, sir.
And that would be the entire amount of the...
That's what he's asking to be considered done.
Thank you. And the $250
has already been paid? Yes, sir, it has. with the stipulation that we would bring it before you.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I just had one.
Go ahead, sir.
How did you come up with the $400,000?
Just the per diems added up.
No, but $25 a day per year is only $9,125.
So the 2016, there were several cases here.
There's two, right? Well.
Or more?
So they're in 20, the case number 2016 R138.
Okay. They imposed a fine of $25 a day on the date the report was due, continuing until it was filed.
And that was what?
And the total at that point was $13,125. Then for case number 2018 R494, it involved two. The report was due on 117. It was filed in 6 of 26, so it made it 3,433 days late, which totaled 85,825. On the second one, the report was due on 131 of 18. It was filed 626 of 26, making it 3,069 days late. That was 76,725. And then he had a report due on 131 of 19. It was filed in 2026, making it 2,698 days late, which totaled 67,450. And then the last one, case number 2020R-146, report 131 of 20. The report was filed 626 of 26, making it 2,338 days late. totaling $233,800. All of that totaled $476,925.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, sir.
So the Secretary of State thinks this is a reasonable resolution of this case.
Is that fair to say?
Yes, sir. Okay. And I don't know what the facts and circumstances are, but I really don't, at least just obviously speaking personally, I don't want people paying money for the opportunity to get a case in front of us. That's what I thought I heard you say. Okay. I think if that comes up in conversations, as our representative anyway I ask that you have the right to do that you don have to pay any money If you want to offer in that context then we put that forward but don pay before okay
Yes, sir.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Any other questions to Ms. Taylor?
No.
Respondent or respondents representative present this afternoon?
No, sir.
All right, thank you. Moving on to the third and final reconsideration case, 2018-S-003, Rick Walker et al., Ms. Taylor.
Yes, sir. Thank you. This was a transfer case from the OEC. In 2018, the OEC found the respondents to be in violation of Revised Code 351711C for failure to file the addenda for the 2014 post-primary, 2014 pre-general, and the 2014 Post General Reports. They imposed a $25 per day fine until the committee came into compliance. The addenda were due on 1-17 of 18 and were filed on 2-4 of 19, making them 383 days late. On 8-5 of 26, Mr. Walker was sent a notice of transfer and collection letter. On 9-18-26, he filed a motion for consideration of the fines imposed by the OEC. On that date, his fine had accumulated to $9,575. He, in good faith, sent $200 to the Secretary of State, and it was deposited in the OEC fund to have the OEC reconsider his fine. The Secretary of State agrees that $9,575 is excessive. and respectfully request that Mr. Walker's reconsideration request be considered.
I'm sorry, could you say what the outstanding amount is in theory? $9,000?
$9,575, sir.
And $200 is the entire amount of the compromise?
Yes, sir.
And to build on Mr. McNair's questions,
Secretary of State's office feels that that is a just and reasonable amount.
Yes, sir.
Any other questions?
So this is the only one where, given the opportunity to describe the circumstances, he declined. Do you know why he declined or what justification he has for not abiding by the law?
No, sir.
I do not know.
Thank you.
Ms. Taylor is the representative of the respondent present today?
No, sir.
Okay. Are there any other questions of Ms. Taylor with respect to the Rick Walker matter? If not, then with respect to case 2017-S-007, 2018-R-494, and 2018-S-003, I'll entertain a motion we go into quasi-judicial deliberations.
So moved. We have a second. Seconded.
Discussion?
All in favor, aye.
Aye. Opposed, same sign. All right, we'll proceed with quasi-judicial operations. We're now off the record.