Officials with the state Campaign Spending Commission charge that state Rep. Romy Cachola misused his campaign funds for an SUV, as well as questionable public relations efforts and meals, and want him to pay reimbursements and fines totaling nearly $70,000.

Cachola’s attorneys, who insist the veteran lawmaker did nothing wrong intentionally, were granted a continuance of his case from the commission Wednesday. The case will next be heard June 18.

Commission attorney Gary Kam said the most clear-cut misuse appears to involve a 2008 Nissan Pathfinder that Friends of Romy Cachola purchased with $30,437 in campaign funds from a local Nissan dealer in March 2008. 

From that date to December 2013, the campaign reported spending $9,111 for gasoline, $1,638 for city vehicle registration, $10,066 for insurance, $340 for repair and maintenance, and $671 for parking, the commission’s written complaint states.

Cachola, until Wednesday morning, had made no reimbursements to the campaign although it was evident that he had used the vehicle for noncampaign purposes, Kam said.

State investigators, acting on the commission’s behalf, conducted a weeklong surveillance of Cachola and his use of the SUV in mid-January. During that time Cachola drove from his Kalihi home to his wife’s Kalihi Street medical office, the state Capitol, the Honolulu Country Club and St. Anthony Church, commission documents state. Kam said it did not appear any campaigning was done during the surveillance period.

Kam also pointed out that Cachola (D, Sand Island-Kalihi-Airport), before returning to the Legislature in late 2012, was a member of the Honolulu City Council from September 2004. During that time, Cachola received a car allowance of $250 to $300 a month, as did all other Council members, Kam said.

Cachola is also being investigated by the city Ethics Commission, according to several sources. Cachola, two of his attorneys and Ethics Commission Executive Director Chuck Totto all refused to confirm or deny that the Ethics Commission is conducting an investigation.

Meanwhile, in addition to investigating the use of the SUV, the Campaign Spending Commission is looking at campaign expenses listed under "public relations" and "food and beverages." Using campaign money for public relations or food and beverages is, generally, not unusual and is allowed, although the law states detailed records must be kept, including vouchers, worksheets and receipts.

But Cachola’s campaign, Kam said, made 40 expenditures totaling $2,774 to different individuals under the description "public relations" from January 2011 to December 2013, none of which appeared to be commonly used public relations or advertising firms.

The campaign also reported 137 expenditures totaling $9,194 to different individuals for "food and beverages" from January 2011 to December 2013. That appeared excessive, Kam told commission members.

The report calls for reimbursement of all SUV-related, public relations, and food and beverage expenses because no detailed explanations were given showing any were campaign-related, Kam said. Additionally, the report recommends $1,000 in fines for SUV-related violations and 25 percent of the cost of reimbursements ($693 for public relations, $2,298 for food and beverages).

Cachola did not appear before the commission Wednesday. James Stone, a Cachola attorney, submitted a series of documents to the commission 10 minutes before Wednesday’s meeting, Kam said. Included is documentation showing a recent $12,700 reimbursement from Cachola to his committee for use of the SUV and $1,800 in reimbursements for other expenses.

The submittal was done "to show he is acting in good faith" and a desire to cooperate with the commission, Stone said. Cachola believes any non-election use of the vehicle is more than offset by campaign expenses that he paid for personally and did not seek reimbursement from the campaign, he said.

Stone told commissioners that Cachola was too busy during the recently completed legislative session to gather all the documents requested by the commission by deadlines set by commission staff. A continuance is being sought because Cachola recently hired attorney Michael Green to assist with his case and Green had not had a chance to review all the materials.

Green said Cachola and his attorneys are cooperating fully with the Campaign Spending Commission and its staff. Cachola did nothing wrong in his eyes, Green said.

"I think a lot of this is just interpretation,"Green said. Cachola may have driven the SUVto church, "and then he spends an hour and a half after church talking to people about his campaign and things like that."

In the course of his daily activities, Cachola is constantly campaigning, Green said. "That’s what he does,"he said. "There’s an election every two years in the House of Representatives and there’s always something going on at the Council. There’s always some aspect of it that deals with his candidacy and what he’s doing for his constituents."

Green said that after Cachola and his campaign provide their explanations, if the commission and its staff believe certain things are not allowed as campaign expenses, "then we’ll pay it."