###

NOTE, Sept. 16: This post has been updated to clarify the FPPC process.

###

Former Humboldt County Auditor-Controller Karen Paz Dominguez, whose turbulent tenure in elected office was characterized by interpersonal turmoil and overdue fiscal reporting, is now facing $61,500 in proposed penalties from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failure to file campaign finance disclosure forms on time.

The proposed fines stem from violations of the Political Reform Act during both her successful run for office in 2018 and her unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2022, according to an agenda for next week’s FPPC meeting.

Specifically, the violations by Paz Dominguez and/or her campaign committee include:

• failure to timely file seven semi-annual campaign statements and two 24-Hour Reports during the 2018 campaign
• failure to timely file one pre-election campaign statement and three semiannual campaign statements in 2022
• failure to timely file the required Assuming Office form
• failure to timely file Annual forms in 2019 and 2021, and
• failure to timely file a Leaving Office Statement of Economic Interest Form

The Political Reform Act requires local candidate and their committees to file a Form 497 within 24 hours of receiving contributions of $1,000 or more within the 90 days before an election.

Reached by phone, FPPC Communications Director Jay Wierenga told the Outpost that he could not discuss specifics about this or any other case before the commission, but he pointed out that the proposed fines against Paz Dominguez fall under the “pre-notice” portion of the agenda, which means the commission won’t take any action at its meeting next Thursday.

“Most of our cases are settled” before the fines are assessed, Wierenga said. 

Typically, he explained, a a case is initiated when complaint comes in. This triggers an investigation, and if the investigation finds violations of the Political Reform Act then the FPPC will attempt to settle the matter, often by proposing a penalty and negotiating an agreement.

When that process fails to resolve the matter — say, if the person does not respond at all or quits responding and walks away — then the case may progress toward default. When things reach that stage, the FPPC will typically propose the maximum penalty for each violation of government code. Part of the rationale for this, Wierenga explained, is to get people’s attention and motivate them to come to the table and negotiate.

“Generally they work out a settlement that’s less than the maximum,” he said.

When alleged violators don’t work out a deal, the FPPC holds a hearing and decides on an a penalty amount to assess. 

“If people want to fight [that decision], they can,” Wierenga said. “It then goes before administrative law judge, who makes a recommendation to commissioners. If the person still doesn’t like the outcome, they can take [the matter] to superior court.”

At any point in this process, people can choose to negotiate with the commission and reach a settlement. Wierenga said that doing so at the outset is quicker. It amount to a public admission of the violation(s) and the issuing of a check for the agreed-upon penalty amount. That money then goes into the state’s general fund.

In the rare cases when the alleged violator never comes forward and the assessed penalties go into default, the FPPC can place a lien on the person’s earnings and garnish money from tax refunds or lottery winnings.

If Paz Dominguez doesn’t reach a settlement with the FPPC before next month’s meeting agenda is published, her proposed fines will listed as a default proceeding.

Reached via text, Paz Dominguez declined to comment on the record.