[0:10] order Miss Berger, please call

[0:12] the roll. Representatives Garcia

[0:12] Sander.

[0:13] presents

[0:16] maybe

[0:18] oodrop here

[0:23] here

[0:29] thank you so we are here

[0:30] following on the

[0:35] meetings that we had to hear

[0:38] testimony on this case and I

[0:39] wanted to just

[0:42] go back to

[0:46] why our committee was set up in

[0:49] the first place we were tasked

[0:51] with addressing the complaint

[0:53] that Representative Marshall

[0:57] filed that alleged and I

[0:59] quote from his complaint that

[1:00] Representative Lindsey grossly

[1:02] mismanaged and frequently used

[1:05] the House Democratic petty cash

[1:06] fund for personal use in an

[1:07] unethical and potentially

[1:08] criminal manner

[1:11] with funds unaccounted for by

[1:13] appropriate receipts or any

[1:15] other basic and fundamental

[1:16] fiscal measure one would expect

[1:18] of a person in the exercise of

[1:20] fiduciary duties required by

[1:23] such a role in office the

[1:25] categories in his complaint

[1:28] are one misappropriation of

[1:30] campaign funds slash money

[1:33] laundering to misappropriation

[1:35] or misallocation of caucus funds

[1:37] through personal use of the fund

[1:38] debit card

[1:43] throughout these hearings we

[1:44] have

[1:47] completed a thorough review and

[1:48] discussion of all the evidence

[1:51] gathered and at that point in

[1:52] time in May the committee found

[1:55] that probable cause existed that

[1:56] an ethical violation by

[1:58] Representative Lindsay may have

[1:59] occurred under a breach of

[2:02] fiduciary responsibility and

[2:04] negligence but not at a criminal

[2:08] level. I and all the members of

[2:10] this committee have spent many

[2:13] hours reviewing the complaint

[2:14] reviewing Representative

[2:14] Lindsay's init

[2:16] ial response to the complaint

[2:19] all of the evidence that was

[2:22] given to the committee initially

[2:24] then followed by the two days of

[2:26] witness testimony and

[2:27] thenpresentative Lindsay's

[2:30] attorneys statements as well

[2:32] as her clothsing statement

[2:38] I during my processing of all

[2:39] this information I just kept

[2:41] going back to the complaint

[2:43] language and the allegations

[2:44] from Representative Marshall

[2:47] which I just outlined

[2:51] specifically he had a targeted a

[2:52] misappropriation of campaign

[2:55] funds regarding a $2500 check

[2:58] from a campaign count and then

[3:00] reimbursement to a personal

[3:02] account you know following up

[3:02] on that we certainly heard from

[3:03] witnesses and from Rep Lindsay

[3:07] with an explanation for that

[3:09] the second one had to do with

[3:12] the misallocation of funds in

[3:16] regards to the $6,358.68

[3:18] reimbursement check that

[3:20] matched an invoice from the

[3:23] Marriott and again we saw

[3:25] written evidence and also

[3:27] testimony following that

[3:30] particular incident and then

[3:32] third personal use of the fund

[3:33] debit card. some of the

[3:37] ethical principles that were

[3:39] alleged in Reppmarshall's

[3:41] complaint that were

[3:45] he says we're violated we're

[3:47] gross mismanagement of funds

[3:49] extreme negligence in handling

[3:51] of the fund misappropriation of

[3:52] funds or money laundering and

[3:54] breach of fiduciary duties. I

[3:55] wanted to just review that so

[3:58] that we're all still focused

[4:00] on the the task at hand and kind

[4:01] of what brought us here in the

[4:04] first place. with my review

[4:09] over the last many weeks

[4:12] zeroed back in on what

[4:15] constitutes an ethical violation

[4:17] and I really wanted to have that

[4:20] clear in my mind and realized

[4:21] that ethical violations can

[4:23] occur when there's a breach of

[4:26] an established standard or

[4:28] some code of conduct in a way

[4:32] that may break the trust of

[4:32] who that

[4:36] that trust is between or could

[4:38] cause could cause harm or do

[4:40] both break trust and cause harm.

[4:42] so a breach of ethical standards

[4:44] can happen on purpose but it

[4:46] also can happen due to poor

[4:48] practices or high pressure

[4:48] situations

[4:51] so you know these ethical

[4:54] violations are a large

[4:56] umbrella of possibilities and I

[4:58] do believe that what we have

[5:00] observed and heard here fits the

[5:02] description of an ethical

[5:02] violation. Again I keep going

[5:05] back to that first meeting we

[5:09] had where we were discussing

[5:11] kind of is this an ethical

[5:14] concern that is considered under

[5:16] legislative duties from an

[5:19] elected official or is this

[5:21] you know a competence issue for

[5:24] a person serving in a position

[5:26] as a member of the legislature

[5:28] or is it potentially both so

[5:30] that you know I really

[5:31] appreciated that very first day

[5:32] where we had that discussion

[5:37] and I think that we even on that

[5:41] first day we ended up seeing

[5:43] that being an elected

[5:45] representative within the

[5:46] House of Representatives and

[5:48] then being elected into a

[5:50] position of leadership within

[5:53] the legislature all constitutes

[5:55] what we are now considering

[5:58] legislative duties that was our

[6:00] committee discussion that first

[6:02] day taking care of other

[6:03] legislators' money

[6:06] to conduct legislator business

[6:08] is part of the legislative

[6:12] process is what I remember us

[6:13] kind of coming to a conclusion

[6:15] there and then the impact of the

[6:17] misuse or mismanagement of that

[6:20] money falls within that

[6:22] misconduct of legislative duties

[6:24] as we discussed back in early

[6:28] summer and I think that those

[6:29] concerns that involve those

[6:30] duties can very well be looked

[6:32] at through this ethical lens

[6:32] that I just

[6:36] described I wanted to just do

[6:40] that as an overview you know

[6:43] to start our discussion and

[6:45] then to hear from you all on you

[6:48] know how you've been processing

[6:50] all the information that has

[6:53] come our way and and see

[6:56] where that takes us so committee

[6:57] I'd like to just open it up for

[7:01] comments you know globally

[7:02] or specifically whatever you'd

[7:03] like to share

[7:04] at this time.

[7:07] Representative Soper

[7:08] thank you

[7:12] sit very well with the

[7:12] microphone

[7:18] on august 13th and 14th this

[7:20] committee did hear oral

[7:21] testimony andres representative

[7:22] mandy Lindsey ethics case

[7:24] after we had previously

[7:25] determined that there was

[7:28] probable cause on May11th for

[7:29] breach of fiduciary duty

[7:31] mismanagement negligence and

[7:32] misappropriation

[7:35] a legislator holds the public

[7:37] trust in managing funds of

[7:38] others is the utmost position of

[7:39] trust

[7:43] uhpresentative Lindsey ran for

[7:44] and was elected Democratic

[7:46] caucus chair position that

[7:47] involved managing the caucus

[7:48] account or the petty funds

[7:51] Only a legislator who is a

[7:52] Democrat may manage the House

[7:53] Democratic caucus account

[7:56] since only a legislator may

[7:58] manage a caucus account as part

[8:00] of their legislative duties the

[8:01] obligation to fulfill those

[8:04] duties in an ethical and prudent

[8:04] manner apply

[8:08] as we are the ethics committee

[8:10] and we are here you know looking

[8:12] at ethical violation. I mean

[8:13] there's many types of ethical

[8:14] breaches

[8:16] there could be you know

[8:17] conflicts of interest you know

[8:19] bribery corruption. there's also

[8:21] the misuse of you know public

[8:22] funds and abuse of power

[8:26] centering on those whenever you

[8:27] have control over an account

[8:29] that involves the dollars of

[8:30] someone else that you've been

[8:30] entrusted to manage on their

[8:31] behalf

[8:34] any mismanagement has to be

[8:37] looked at with a high level of

[8:39] scrutiny determining certain

[8:41] ethical factors such as intent

[8:44] to knowledge magnitude of

[8:46] personal gain impact on the

[8:47] public trust and policy

[8:49] transparency and disclosure the

[8:51] frequency and pattern and

[8:52] compliance with a specific rules

[8:54] as we

[9:00] reflect on the case before us

[9:02] and all the evidence both

[9:03] written and oral testimony

[9:07] it is pretty clear that there

[9:09] was an impact on the public

[9:11] trust. anytime you have a

[9:13] legislator that is moving money

[9:14] from for example a

[9:17] campaign account to the House

[9:20] Democratic petty cashund to

[9:22] their personal account and then

[9:24] once that has been brought to

[9:25] their attention that legislator

[9:28] sends a check back to the house

[9:28] petty cash account

[9:33] this on you know another level

[9:35] does have an element that looks

[9:37] like a type of of money

[9:38] laundering. I'm not saying

[9:40] that's necessarily what it is

[9:42] but in a world where

[9:44] you think about what is the

[9:49] logical way someone would act if

[9:51] aze was an error you would

[9:52] return that check to the account

[9:53] in which that account originated

[9:54] from.

[9:57] it doesn't take special classes

[9:59] or going to a school to

[10:01] determine how to manage an

[10:03] account. same thing is true

[10:04] with the $6300 and I'm rounding

[10:05] here

[10:08] the fact that the check was

[10:12] backdated to be able to create

[10:13] the illusion of

[10:16] not knowing whether the house

[10:17] card had been charged or not

[10:21] and then those funds were never

[10:23] returned. Logical and prudent

[10:25] person would have written a

[10:27] check back to the caucus account

[10:31] for $6300 and if there were

[10:34] $6300 worth of expenses to be

[10:36] reimbursed for receipts could

[10:38] have been presented and a check

[10:39] could have been issued for that

[10:40] amount.

[10:42] Same thing is true with the

[10:43] hotel

[10:47] that you know that should

[10:49] have been reimbursed at a more

[10:50] timely manner rather than

[10:53] waiting until it was highlighted

[10:54] or brought to the member's'

[10:54] attention

[10:57] the fact that the member in

[10:58] question had not

[11:01] done anything to go out of her

[11:04] way to give the cochair access

[11:05] to the account is also

[11:07] troubling. This leads back to

[11:09] the public trust and the impact

[11:11] because it goes to transparency

[11:12] and disclosure

[11:15] the reason why you have two

[11:17] signers on an account is so that

[11:19] what is before us should not

[11:20] happen. you should have that

[11:23] second person that acts as the

[11:25] watchdog on the other one. it's

[11:27] not because of lack of trust but

[11:28] a good system that has been set

[11:30] up both in this country and

[11:32] around the world for maintaining

[11:33] whether it's club accounts or

[11:36] caucus accounts or banks it's

[11:38] just a level of fiduciary

[11:40] duty that has been accepted

[11:41] globally.

[11:43] because of

[11:47] all this that I do see as a

[11:50] pattern of the frequency is

[11:52] troubling and the lack of

[11:54] remorse has also been something

[11:56] that I have been troubled with

[11:58] and believed that this committee

[11:59] should recommend

[12:02] something in accordance with our

[12:03] findings.

[12:10] Any other members of the

[12:11] committee

[12:12] p re s ent ative Maybury

[12:18] thank you madam chairir. I

[12:20] largely want to echo points made

[12:23] bypresentative Soper but one

[12:26] thing that I wanna highlight

[12:29] is the conversation that

[12:32] we've had over the course of

[12:33] the past several months

[12:37] around the $6300 check and in

[12:38] particular

[12:42] what we heard about the

[12:46] timeline involving that check in

[12:48] testimony one particular

[12:49] instance that I want to

[12:52] highlight is when we ask

[12:54] Speaker McCluskey about what the

[12:57] first conversation was regarding

[13:01] that check she said

[13:03] thatpresentative Lindsey

[13:05] mentioned in that first meeting

[13:07] that the $6300 was taken from

[13:08] her account

[13:10] in

[13:13] April in the April meeting the

[13:15] speaker said that that's what

[13:18] her understanding from

[13:22] Replindsay about why there

[13:25] had been a reimbursement. but

[13:29] and then in testimony and in the

[13:30] response to the complaint

[13:34] the story lines up differently

[13:36] than what we heard from the

[13:38] speaker what we heard from

[13:43] rap Joseph I'm also troubled by

[13:46] the fact that

[13:51] receipts would add up exactly to

[13:55] $6300 in change that seems

[14:03] incredibly unlikely and

[14:04] you know in conversations with

[14:06] Mr Quinn

[14:11] you know felt like there was

[14:12] backwards

[14:15] reasoning to get to

[14:19] reimbursement amounts and as

[14:22] a result I do not feel like

[14:24] anything that I heard in the

[14:26] hearing would make me change my

[14:28] mind on our original

[14:30] determination. of a finding

[14:30] of probable cause.

[14:34] Thank you

[14:39] p re s ent ative Woodrow

[14:42] thank you madamir. thank you

[14:44] members of the committee thank

[14:46] you to all the witnesses who

[14:49] came and testified some more

[14:50] willing than others thank you to

[14:52] Representative Lindsay and

[14:55] her council for taking us

[14:58] through this I believe first

[15:00] of its kind exercise thank you

[15:03] especially to Olls who has given

[15:07] us invaluable guidance as we've

[15:08] attempted to

[15:10] exercise and execute our duties

[15:12] under our rules

[15:17] I wanna start with saying on the

[15:19] count of or charge or complaint

[15:20] of money laundering I

[15:24] I don't find that there was

[15:25] money laundering here. I think

[15:28] thatpresentative Marshall was

[15:29] confused

[15:32] about the sequencing of the

[15:36] payment of dues and

[15:39] reimbursement, I think what

[15:41] we had was a payment by

[15:43] Representative Lindsey of her

[15:45] caucus dues for a prior

[15:46] session

[15:50] from her campaign account and

[15:51] then

[15:56] a new session a new term

[15:58] rather where caucus dues were

[16:01] due she thought she had paid

[16:04] with individual funds that

[16:05] turned out not to be the case

[16:06] but she thought she had

[16:07] deposited

[16:10] a series of checks including

[16:12] a check that she had apparently

[16:15] written personally and then

[16:17] after a conversation with her

[16:20] spouse was reimbursing herself

[16:21] personally

[16:25] and that it the timing you know

[16:27] from when she paid with her

[16:30] campaign funds a prior

[16:33] sessions dues the prior term's

[16:35] dues and then refunding the

[16:38] money to herself personally

[16:40] being several years later I

[16:42] don't think qualifies as money

[16:45] laundering the timing it's too

[16:48] far apart to evince any intent

[16:51] I'm not going to say that it

[16:52] wasn't problematic

[16:52] Representative Lindsey

[16:54] should have verified that she

[16:58] had actually paid the terms

[17:00] caucus dos before refunding them

[17:04] to herself once it was

[17:05] pointed out to her I do believe

[17:08] that she refunded that money

[17:11] back in so I want to be clear

[17:12] that I don't believe that there

[17:14] was money laundering and I do

[17:15] think that

[17:19] the fileler the complaint you

[17:20] know testified that he had not

[17:22] kept abreast of these

[17:22] proceedings

[17:28] and I I think that his testimony

[17:32] was impassioned to the point as

[17:32] to events

[17:36] in some respects bias

[17:41] towards the accused having said

[17:43] that I do think

[17:47] on the complaint of gross

[17:49] mismanagement that our

[17:50] finding of probable cause should

[17:50] be affirmed.

[17:55] I think it's unquestionable here

[17:58] that the caucus account was

[17:59] grossly mismanaged

[18:04] there was no accounting

[18:06] generally accepted accounting

[18:08] principles established the

[18:09] testimony indicated that

[18:12] receipts were kept in a fairly

[18:15] haphazard way we haven't seen

[18:17] all the receipts the receipts

[18:20] that were provided many of them

[18:22] are not itemized so while we can

[18:24] tell the date of the payments

[18:25] out of the account and the

[18:28] amount and the recipient we

[18:28] don't actually have an

[18:30] itemization in all instances of

[18:31] what the money was

[18:32] spent on

[18:35] there's been a real lack of

[18:38] transparency and to echo

[18:38] something that

[18:42] p re s ent ative Mayrry said

[18:43] there's been a lack of

[18:44] consistency in the testimony

[18:46] the story has changed several

[18:47] times.

[18:51] I want to note that I do think

[18:52] that this committee has

[18:53] authority

[18:54] to consider this matter

[18:59] certainly if someone is

[19:01] traveling let's say abroad or in

[19:03] a different state and has a

[19:05] minor traffic infraction or

[19:06] something like that

[19:09] that's totally unrelated to

[19:12] their legislative duties you

[19:14] know that might raise some type

[19:16] of question about whether or not

[19:19] an ethics our ethics rules apply

[19:22] but

[19:25] you know I do think that

[19:26] Replindsay and and perhaps our

[19:28] counselor Reid the law too

[19:29] narrowly

[19:31] it contradicts precedent

[19:34] our rules are presumed to be

[19:36] constitutional and I do think

[19:38] that the management of caucus

[19:41] dues derives from and is

[19:42] directly related to legislative

[19:45] duties and so I do think that

[19:46] this committee has authority and

[19:47] that our rules as applied our

[19:50] constitutional and I don't think

[19:52] that our rules would only be

[19:53] constitutional if we were

[19:54] considering expulsion

[19:56] so

[20:00] I understand the legal

[20:02] argument being made and I

[20:03] disagree with it

[20:07] as for the state's review I

[20:11] think Replindsay's position

[20:12] places too much emphasis on it.

[20:14] Mister Quinn, who I found to be

[20:18] a very credible witness came

[20:19] and reiterated what he put in

[20:22] his report which is that he's

[20:24] not an accountant it was not an

[20:27] audit. He did not have complete

[20:29] receipts the receipts he did

[20:30] have were incomplete. He was

[20:33] required to use other evidence

[20:34] like text messages and

[20:36] conversations with the speaker

[20:42] in order to fill gaps his

[20:44] conclusion in which he said that

[20:45] the caucus funds

[20:48] the caucus fund was a you know

[20:50] appeared to be used for its

[20:52] intended purpose. he backed

[20:53] away from it slightly

[20:56] at the hearing said he wasn't as

[20:58] confident in it as he had

[21:00] been after hearing some of the

[21:00] testimony

[21:04] and when asked he made quite

[21:06] clear that his finding was not

[21:09] tantamount or equivalent to a

[21:10] finding that the fund was

[21:10] managed properly

[21:13] when Representative Lindsay was

[21:15] asked about Mr Quinn's report.

[21:17] she said that she didn't

[21:18] actually agree with all of it

[21:22] for one example the $925 in

[21:24] three different checks that were

[21:27] classified as loans

[21:29] bypresentative Lindsay was not

[21:31] counted as loans by Mister Quinn

[21:32] she also said that

[21:35] she hasn't taken the time to go

[21:37] through it all line by line and

[21:38] that perhaps someone you know

[21:40] would have the time to do that

[21:42] and with all due respect to

[21:45] Representative Lindsay I I

[21:46] think that that burden was on

[21:46] her

[21:48] and her counsel and they

[21:50] should have gone through it line

[21:51] by line in preparation for the

[21:52] hearing

[21:55] she acknowledged in her

[21:57] testimony that it's important

[21:58] for us as colleagues to talk

[21:59] with each other

[22:01] and to communicate with each

[22:02] other and that when there's

[22:03] problems we need to sit down and

[22:04] work it out

[22:06] but when I asked if she had

[22:09] met with Representative Joseph

[22:10] who I would know was champing at

[22:10] the bit

[22:13] to get to the bottom of this and

[22:14] to meet with her she said no she

[22:15] hadn't

[22:18] and when I asked why she said

[22:18] she didn't want anything to do

[22:19] with her

[22:22] I am sympathetic to the fact

[22:24] that there was no written job

[22:25] description that there was no

[22:26] training

[22:29] that prior caucus chairs might

[22:30] have also done a poor job

[22:32] that her first caucus co-chair

[22:36] took an out of sight out of mind

[22:36] approach to this

[22:38] all of that

[22:40] is is real

[22:45] at the same time when

[22:46] Representative Lindsay became

[22:46] overwhelmed

[22:48] and I

[22:52] paraphrase I believe she said at

[22:52] one point she was a hot mess

[22:54] she didn't tell leadership

[22:56] she didn't ask for help

[23:02] someone who acknowledges that

[23:03] it's important for colleagues to

[23:04] talk to each other

[23:06] should have gone to leadership

[23:08] disclosed what was happening

[23:08] and asked for help

[23:13] I think that herre

[23:14] representative Lindsay's answer

[23:15] to the complaint only added to

[23:16] the confusion

[23:20] for example, it implies that she

[23:21] wanted to pay her dues with

[23:22] campaign funds

[23:24] and that's why she had refunded

[23:26] the money to herself personally

[23:29] but what she omits is that she

[23:31] didn't actually pay the caucus

[23:33] dues from her campaign funds or

[23:35] from any other source and this

[23:36] is at a time when she

[23:39] acknowledges that the fund was

[23:41] lacking in money and that she

[23:42] was loaning

[23:45] other funds to the the caucus

[23:46] dues account

[23:46] the petty cash fund

[23:52] In some she used such poor

[23:53] bookkeeping

[23:57] that to this very day I don't

[23:58] think anyone on this committee

[23:59] could state with confidence

[24:01] who owes

[24:05] who what and where the money

[24:06] actually went

[24:10] I think on the hotel

[24:13] reimbursement my read of the

[24:15] testimony is that she owed money

[24:16] to her aid in the amount of

[24:16] several $1000

[24:20] and paid her aid after deciding

[24:22] to keep the hotel reimbursement

[24:24] check which is representative

[24:26] soper pointed out appears to

[24:26] have been backdated.

[24:30] all of this leaves me very sad

[24:34] I consider Repiny like I said

[24:36] during an earlier hearing one of

[24:36] the nicest people in the

[24:37] building

[24:41] representative senator governor

[24:42] staff

[24:45] you're all wonderful people

[24:46] Representative Lindsay is one of

[24:47] the nicest

[24:49] this is a really hard building

[24:52] but that doesn't excuse what

[24:52] happened

[24:57] What I'd like to know from OLs

[24:58] is what our options are from

[24:59] here

[25:02] if we were to recommend Censure

[25:02] for example

[25:05] is that something that needs to

[25:06] be voted on by the full house

[25:10] would new house members because

[25:12] we're not in session when new

[25:12] house members vote on that

[25:14] in January

[25:16] would they be able

[25:22] to even exercise that authority

[25:22] given that she'll be out of

[25:23] office

[25:26] if we were to do something short

[25:28] of Accenture like a reprimand

[25:28] does the house need to vote on

[25:29] that

[25:32] what are our options at this

[25:33] point?

[25:36] that's where I'm at right now

[25:37] and those are my questions.

[25:40] thank youpresentativeudreau.

[25:42] Representative Garcia Sander

[25:46] thank you madam chairir and a

[25:48] echo what my colleagues have

[25:51] already stated and from the

[25:54] nonlawyer here on the panel.

[25:56] you know I just, I see

[26:01] that just overall just gross

[26:02] mismanagement of

[26:06] of money of the caucus moving

[26:09] money between accounts covering

[26:12] shortfalls not working with

[26:14] the caucus cochair those just

[26:17] all led to a really bad storm of

[26:18] events and

[26:23] to me as a member of the body

[26:25] but also a member of the public

[26:26] I would see that as you know

[26:27] breaking

[26:31] crust with colleagues breaking

[26:33] trust with the public

[26:35] breaking trust as far as

[26:37] management of dollars whether

[26:40] that's caucus dollars or public

[26:42] dollars and I think that affects

[26:45] everybody in the body it

[26:46] affects us as an institution and

[26:50] so I know that OlllS

[26:56] provided poten some potential

[26:58] options for us and I think

[27:01] they'll go over that but I do

[27:03] believe that they're there

[27:06] needs to be a strong message a

[27:08] strong consequence for the

[27:11] breaking of trust with

[27:13] colleagues and with the public

[27:16] when it comes to managment of of

[27:18] the monies that we are entrusted

[27:20] so with that I will turn it

[27:21] over to you

[27:22] chairer rolls

[27:26] thank you for that I wanted

[27:29] to just circle back before we

[27:31] move forward to

[27:34] thank you all very much for your

[27:37] thoughtful comments it's also

[27:38] I am also in agreement that

[27:42] it is my conclusion that the

[27:44] trust in the management of these

[27:47] caucus funds was unfortunately

[27:49] damaged bypresentative

[27:51] Lindsay's inability to proper

[27:53] handle the funds budget and the

[27:54] accounting processes

[27:58] it's apparent that you know at

[28:01] times she was in over her head

[28:02] and did not manage the income

[28:04] and expenses properly. also

[28:06] apparent that there were

[28:07] multiple opportunities to

[28:09] recognize the problem in

[28:11] multiple avenues to obtain the

[28:13] help to address these problems

[28:16] that the fund was facing and

[28:19] those avenues were not taken it

[28:20] was especially apparent to me in

[28:23] the $6300 check the timing, the

[28:24] reasoning, the documentation

[28:25] provided for that entire

[28:27] incident

[28:30] was key to raising

[28:34] inquiry from others and

[28:35] seeding doubt in our

[28:36] colleagues that many of the

[28:40] witnesses reflected upon and

[28:42] shared with us the writing of

[28:44] checks to herself without

[28:46] consultation asres

[28:47] representative Soper alluded to

[28:50] you know having a co caucus

[28:50] chair and

[28:54] proceeding with

[28:56] writing checks to yourself

[28:59] without any checkin or

[29:01] consultation with a cochair or

[29:04] anyone else even if it was

[29:07] done in the up and up it breaks

[29:10] trust when that happens and that

[29:12] unilateral decision making

[29:17] to me not only breaks or erodes

[29:19] trusts but that falls under this

[29:21] ethical concern that we're here

[29:24] to examine the

[29:28] the help with the ba bank

[29:29] account when it

[29:32] had a low balance when it was

[29:35] known that the balance was low

[29:37] and Representative Lindsay's

[29:40] desire to fulfill her duty in

[29:41] her own words was so strong she

[29:43] wanted to make sure we were fed,

[29:45] make sure we were taken care of

[29:47] and all of us so much appreciate

[29:50] that but I think it did

[29:54] overtake thoughts of of the the

[29:55] other side of that creating and

[29:58] following an actual budget or

[29:59] by seeking help when that was

[30:03] needed and knowing that none

[30:05] of us would have ever expected

[30:08] her to use her own funds to

[30:10] kind of fill in the holes. I

[30:11] don't agree with Representative

[30:13] Marshall's allegation that the

[30:15] use of the fund was used in a

[30:17] potentially criminal manner. I

[30:20] see no evidence of that so I

[30:21] agree with Representative

[30:23] Woodrow on his assessment there

[30:25] I don't think there was ever any

[30:27] criminal intent in this

[30:28] situation. I do just see as you

[30:29] all have reiter

[30:32] ated just a disorganized

[30:34] unstructured handling of the

[30:37] fund the overuse of personal

[30:40] funds to cover caucus's expenses

[30:41] or not depending on the

[30:44] situation was never an

[30:46] expectation. there was no

[30:49] clear bookkeeping and as we've

[30:51] reviewed over the summer what

[30:52] is there is very difficult to

[30:55] follow and all this led to a

[30:57] break in the trust of the duty

[30:58] given to her by our caucus

[31:01] this as

[31:04] as you saidpresentative Woodrow

[31:06] this this pains me personally. I

[31:07] see

[31:11] I also have a deep fondness

[31:13] forpresentative Lindsay in

[31:16] respect her in her her passion

[31:20] to to be a representative and to

[31:22] represent her constituents

[31:25] and to to help all of us and

[31:27] it makes what we are tasked to

[31:29] do here very hard and I know

[31:30] that this must be very hard for

[31:32] Representative Lindsey as well

[31:35] to experience but I also have

[31:37] come to the conclusion as I

[31:38] stated before of our original

[31:42] finding of probable cause I

[31:42] have reviewed the memo that

[31:47] OLs provided to us after our

[31:49] last meeting but I think it

[31:52] would be worthwhile to go

[31:55] through that in our public

[31:58] meeting here today so that

[31:58] we're very clear on

[32:00] at least what

[32:05] house Rule49s but also what

[32:07] it doesn't say and what our

[32:11] options may be so under the rule

[32:13] I'll just go through this so

[32:15] you you could we can dig into

[32:17] any questions the committee may

[32:18] number one we can dismiss the

[32:20] complaint againstpresentative

[32:23] Lindseay which I'm hearing

[32:24] from committee members that

[32:27] that's not something that we are

[32:28] interested in pursuing at this

[32:30] time 2 we can find action we can

[32:31] find some a

[32:33] ction should be taken

[32:36] so those are those are kind of

[32:38] the two big buckets and

[32:43] so under actions that could be

[32:46] taken it's important to

[32:48] realize that what's listed in

[32:51] House Rule49 is is a

[32:52] nonexhaustive list of

[32:54] permissional permissible

[32:54] recommendations meaning we can

[32:58] fill in some of the blanks that

[33:00] aren't written in rule

[33:04] but what's written there are

[33:06] reprimand censure or expulsionga

[33:10] nonexhaustive we have the

[33:12] ability and the authority to

[33:17] fill in the the blanks with that

[33:20] umpresentative Woodrow I think

[33:21] it was that asked

[33:25] maybe it was Maybury now I've

[33:29] lostway about those things that

[33:32] require by rule a full house

[33:35] vote either by majority vote

[33:38] or 2/3 vote is

[33:42] is there you know there was a

[33:45] question about that

[33:47] considering you know the

[33:49] consequence of the the situation

[33:50] that we're in with

[33:51] representative Lindsay not

[33:53] coming back for the twenty7

[33:57] session and then what's not

[33:59] written down that we could also

[34:00] consider so I'll I'll turn it

[34:03] over to you all and then

[34:05] committee please ask

[34:08] questions as they come up Miss

[34:09] Chase

[34:12] thank you madam chair members of

[34:13] the committeerie Chase officef

[34:15] of Legislative Legal Services

[34:16] and thank you for your

[34:18] questions. as you noted madam

[34:20] chairir under the rule there is

[34:23] a a nonexhaustive list of

[34:25] actions that the committee could

[34:27] recommend reprimand censure and

[34:29] expulsion are the ones listed

[34:31] and the rule then further states

[34:33] what the vote of the body would

[34:35] need to be so those are actions

[34:37] as described in the rule that

[34:38] the body would need to take and

[34:39] in this situation

[34:43] unless God forbid you have a

[34:44] special session between now and

[34:46] the regular convenience session

[34:49] in 2027 there's no

[34:51] opportunity for the body to take

[34:53] action whilepresentative Lindsay

[34:54] is a member of the general

[34:55] assembly

[34:59] we have one example of the body

[35:01] taking action against a former

[35:04] member and that was back in

[35:06] the special session in 2025

[35:08] where the body adopted a

[35:09] resolution condemning the

[35:12] behavior of a former member so

[35:15] that is something that if you

[35:16] wanted to recommend that the

[35:19] body take action the soonest

[35:20] that could happen would be in

[35:22] the 2027 legislative session

[35:24] the body could consider a

[35:24] resolution

[35:28] condemning the behavior of a

[35:29] former member of that being

[35:31] represented Lilindsay

[35:34] alternatively the committee

[35:35] could make recommendations for

[35:37] the speaker to take action. The

[35:38] speaker has in prior

[35:40] circumstances taken action to

[35:43] formally reprimand a member so

[35:46] reprimand is a term that is an a

[35:47] type of remedy that has been

[35:51] can be used by the body and also

[35:52] has been used by the speaker

[35:54] under her authority as the

[35:56] presiding officer of the body.

[35:59] generally other actions that

[36:01] could be taken could be done

[36:02] things that you recommend that

[36:04] the speaker do as outlined in

[36:06] the memorandum formal admonition

[36:08] which is what this committee in

[36:10] a prior matter had recommended

[36:12] the speaker take action in that

[36:13] manner as well

[36:18] short of that I mean the

[36:20] circumstances make it difficult

[36:23] if the committee wants to to

[36:24] make recommendations for certain

[36:25] actions

[36:29] the body is limited in what

[36:30] what actions it would be able to

[36:30] take

[36:36] so to be clear just to reiterate

[36:38] even though it lists

[36:42] reprimand and and states that

[36:43] that requires a simple majority

[36:45] vote of the house

[36:49] there is that other reprimand

[36:54] situation that is under the

[36:56] speaker's purview to be able to

[36:58] do that because we have past

[36:59] history of of that

[37:02] happening and that's not

[37:06] that doesn't necessarily fall

[37:08] under this particular the vote

[37:11] reprimand it is just separate

[37:14] from that. I I had a question

[37:16] about you know the report of

[37:18] this committee going to

[37:22] leadership the the fact that

[37:26] this complaint was reviewed by

[37:28] the speaker majority leader and

[37:30] minority leader and they the

[37:32] three of them made the decision

[37:33] to forward it to this committee

[37:37] are are they consider all three

[37:39] of them considered leadership

[37:41] that the report goes back to and

[37:44] is it the three of them that

[37:48] have the ability to to do any or

[37:50] is it solely on the speaker

[37:52] because the Democrats are in the

[37:52] majority and she's the

[37:56] the speaker of the house and

[37:57] this was a majority caucus

[37:58] issue. I'm just curious about

[38:00] that because they the three of

[38:03] them triggered the whole

[38:06] committee process so can you

[38:08] help me with that? I don't know

[38:08] if anybody else had that

[38:09] question.

[38:12] thank you madam chairir.

[38:14] againrie Chase legislative

[38:17] legalervices based on pra

[38:18] past practices it would be our

[38:21] recommendation that any final

[38:23] report that the committee issues

[38:25] would go to the speaker under

[38:27] the rule a complaint is filed

[38:28] with the speaker and then the

[38:30] speaker's directed to confer

[38:31] with the minority and majority

[38:33] leader to determine whether or

[38:35] not the complaint lacks merit

[38:38] or if it they can't find that

[38:38] it lacks merit and then it gets

[38:39] referred to

[38:43] a committee all prior ethics

[38:45] committees of the house and of

[38:47] the senate their final report is

[38:49] directed to the presiding

[38:51] officer of the body. when

[38:52] you're in session that goes to

[38:53] the presiding officer and then

[38:55] it gets read it's read as a

[38:56] committee report read across the

[38:58] desk and printed in the journal

[38:59] in this circumstance since

[39:00] you're not in session it would

[39:02] not be printed in the journal

[39:05] prior ethics committees in 2024

[39:06] the Senate Ethics Committee met

[39:08] during the summer issued a

[39:09] report and recommendations

[39:11] to the president and the senate

[39:12] and then that final report was

[39:15] is posted still on the Senate

[39:16] Ethics Committee website so that

[39:19] would be probably the outcome in

[39:20] this situation as well but your

[39:22] my our recommendation is that

[39:24] your report go to the speaker on

[39:25] behalf of the house as the

[39:26] presiding officer of the house.

[39:29] thank you for that that's was

[39:31] for for those that may be

[39:33] listening that was an important

[39:36] point because so often it says

[39:36] you know to the House of

[39:38] Representatives but the speaker

[39:41] really as the presiding

[39:44] officer of the entire house

[39:46] can accept that role as the

[39:48] House of Representatives and so

[39:50] I know we had that question

[39:53] on a previous case and so I just

[39:54] wanted to make that crystal

[39:55] clear that that one person

[39:56] can represent

[39:57] the whole house

[40:02] Further questions for our OLS

[40:04] team representativeOper.

[40:05] thank you ma'am.

[40:07] on the question of printing in

[40:09] the journal, I know that there's

[40:11] things that happen outside of

[40:12] the legislative session that

[40:13] then do get printed in the

[40:15] journal when a new session

[40:16] begins such as a member

[40:16] resigning

[40:19] I'm trying to think of other

[40:20] things but

[40:23] would something like that ever

[40:24] happen from a report from an

[40:25] ethics committee.

[40:31] se thank you madam Chair

[40:32] thank you Representative Soper

[40:34] for the question. I we don't

[40:36] have any knowledge of that

[40:38] happening with the prior

[40:40] ethics committee we'd have to

[40:42] check with the chief clerk to

[40:43] see if there are other things

[40:44] that occur outside of session

[40:45] that do get printed in the

[40:48] journal I'm not certain that

[40:50] a remember resigning that notice

[40:51] gets printed in the journal but

[40:53] I haven't specifically looked

[40:55] for that and now I can't answer

[40:56] that question off the top of my

[40:57] head but the journal is

[41:00] typically the actions that occur

[41:01] during the legislative session

[41:02] of the general assembly of each

[41:03] chamber.

[41:08] you have another question?

[41:09] right, I have another question

[41:13] I'm curious to know if

[41:17] a a person that has been elected

[41:20] by a caucus within the general

[41:23] assembly for this example of

[41:24] course it's the House Democratic

[41:26] caucus. if they've been elected

[41:29] by the house caucus does

[41:31] leadership or the speaker have

[41:33] the authority to remove that

[41:36] person who was elected by the

[41:38] caucus or do they not have that

[41:39] authority

[41:43] Miss Chase if that was clear

[41:44] it's clear thank you madam

[41:45] chairir you know

[41:48] we're not privy to any

[41:51] rules of proceedings of the

[41:54] caucuses but it seems to us

[41:57] that if a member is elected by a

[41:59] certain body to a position then

[42:01] that body would need to be the

[42:02] one that removes that member.

[42:04] doesn't mean you couldn't

[42:06] recommend that the speaker

[42:08] encourage requests to ask that

[42:09] the member resign from that

[42:10] position but it doesn't seem

[42:11] that the speaker would have the

[42:13] authority to remove a person

[42:14] that is elected by another body.

[42:17] thank you for that

[42:18] claritypresentative Mabry.

[42:22] thank you madamir Miss Chase

[42:23] just mentioned

[42:28] what I think would be

[42:30] potentially inappropriate

[42:32] thing for us to recommend which

[42:36] is we could recommend that

[42:39] the speaker request

[42:41] thatpresentative Lindsey

[42:42] resigned from the position of

[42:43] caucus chair like

[42:47] in a public letter or something

[42:49] like that and I feel like

[42:51] that's a way for us to be on the

[42:52] record

[42:56] saying that that's what we think

[42:57] is an appropriate remedy but

[42:59] recognizing that it might not be

[43:01] within our scope of power or the

[43:02] speakers' alone.

[43:09] hear hear that and I you know

[43:12] knowing that that would be a

[43:13] potentially a finding of the

[43:15] committee might add a little

[43:17] weight to that request is what

[43:18] I'm hearing Representative Soper

[43:22] thank you madam chair and and I

[43:25] agree with ourpresentative

[43:26] Mare

[43:26] but kind of along those same

[43:27] lines

[43:30] does a speaker have a power to

[43:33] not assign a member to a

[43:34] committee

[43:34] there's a member

[43:37] you know have the right to

[43:40] physical office or a leadership

[43:42] position on a committee. Can all

[43:45] those be taken away or are those

[43:46] things that are protected

[43:46] Miss Chase

[43:51] thank you madam chairir.

[43:55] as as to positions on committee

[43:57] and leadership positions on

[43:58] committee all and so that

[44:00] question first as the

[44:02] appointing authority for

[44:04] positions on committees the

[44:05] speaker does have the authority

[44:07] to remove or modify any

[44:10] appointments to committees

[44:10] similarly in a

[44:15] with regard to but not as a

[44:17] result of a complaint in a

[44:19] senate ethics matter before

[44:21] there was a complaint filed and

[44:22] actually after the complaint was

[44:26] filed a member of the senate was

[44:28] removed as chair of a committee

[44:29] and then after the complaint was

[44:31] filed was removed from all

[44:33] committees so there is precedent

[44:34] for that at least in the

[44:36] senate in terms of

[44:40] holding an office a physical

[44:42] office in the building

[44:46] you might view that as

[44:50] the office is the is

[44:54] every member is elected to a

[44:56] position in the body by their

[44:58] district by their constituents

[45:00] in their district their district

[45:01] constituents need to have a way

[45:02] to get to their member while

[45:04] that member is still a member of

[45:07] the body so I'm not sure that

[45:08] there's the authority to remove

[45:10] a person from their office.

[45:12] There was again in that same

[45:14] senate situation when the Senate

[45:16] and the House still had access

[45:19] to offices in 1525 Sherman

[45:20] Street, the member's office was

[45:21] moved from the

[45:24] Capitol to 1525 Sherman Street

[45:26] but you don't have that option

[45:28] anymore to move a member from

[45:31] one office in the building to a

[45:32] different building because there

[45:34] are no more spaces available

[45:35] for members of the body at this

[45:36] time

[45:40] umno circumstance that

[45:42] occurred in that prior situation

[45:44] was the member's desk in the

[45:47] chamber was moved from I think

[45:50] they had a position closer to

[45:51] the well and they were moved to

[45:53] the back row.gain you know in

[45:55] this circumstance when the house

[45:57] isn't going to be convening

[45:58] before the term ends

[45:59] there's not much

[46:05] consequence in that if you're

[46:06] trying to have a consequence.

[46:08] Hopefully that answers your

[46:09] questions.

[46:09] you

[46:14] I have another question about

[46:14] leadership

[46:18] knowing that

[46:22] it's our understanding I think

[46:23] that leadership

[46:26] or the speaker has control over

[46:30] the caucus fund at this time and

[46:33] umpresentative Joseph does as

[46:36] well maybe I'm not 100% clear

[46:38] on that but does

[46:42] I know that Representative

[46:46] Lindsey was had to turn over the

[46:49] checkbook and the debit card so

[46:50] access was

[46:56] shut down there do they have

[47:00] I guess it's in their hands any

[47:02] oops

[47:05] stop it

[47:22] OK great thank you

[47:24] they

[47:28] they have control over the fund

[47:31] and so it's up to them to decide

[47:35] on any further reconciliation

[47:39] or reimbursement or you know

[47:42] true chewing up of the whole

[47:43] account

[47:46] do we have any authority

[47:51] to make suggestions on that as

[47:52] far as

[47:54] reimbursements or or not

[47:57] Miss Chase thank you madam

[47:59] Chair. before I answer that

[48:00] question I need to clarify a

[48:01] response that I made about

[48:04] committee appointments in the

[48:05] house the rules require that

[48:07] every member serve on at least

[48:09] one committee so the limitation

[48:11] on the speaker removing a member

[48:13] from committees they would the

[48:14] member would still have to be on

[48:15] one committee

[48:19] sorry for that misstatement

[48:20] in terms of

[48:24] making any recommendations

[48:25] related to the fund

[48:30] we have several prior ethics

[48:32] committees that have made

[48:36] recommendations that seem to be

[48:37] stemming from the alleged

[48:39] behavior that was the subject of

[48:41] the complaint but then

[48:42] separately making a

[48:43] recommendation about something

[48:46] else. so for example and 2006 I

[48:46] believe the

[48:50] it was a different circumstance

[48:51] of course the committee didn't

[48:52] find probable cause. They

[48:54] recognized though that the

[48:56] member's behavior was maybe not

[48:59] appropriate but they didn't find

[49:00] probable cause of a violation

[49:01] but then they made

[49:03] recommendations about the per it

[49:05] had to do with perium claims and

[49:06] they made recommendations

[49:08] related to clarifying the per

[49:10] diems clarifying when it's

[49:11] appropriate to make a

[49:13] prettyiumcla that sort of thing.

[49:14] another instance where our

[49:16] prior ethics committee again did

[49:17] not find probable cause of an

[49:19] ethics violation but wanted

[49:20] further clarification and

[49:23] provided recommendations

[49:25] that members seeking travel

[49:26] reimbursement seek

[49:29] guidance before they make those

[49:32] claims so there are examples of

[49:34] prior committees making

[49:35] recommendations that weren't

[49:38] specifically related to act

[49:40] recommending action against a

[49:43] member but were things that

[49:44] you've discovered during your

[49:46] investigation that highlight

[49:47] issues or areas of concern that

[49:48] you might want to recommend.

[49:50] doesn't mean that the body such

[49:52] or the individuals that you make

[49:53] those recommendations to are

[49:56] obligated to take action but a

[49:56] committee of five members

[49:58] making a recommendation in a

[50:00] final report would be a strong

[50:01] urging for them to do something

[50:02] with regard to the fund. I mean

[50:03] if you want

[50:06] I don't know the status of the

[50:06] caucus having adopted

[50:10] procedures for the management of

[50:11] the fund or other things that

[50:14] you think this process has

[50:15] highlighted for you or certainly

[50:17] appropriate things for you to

[50:18] consider including in your

[50:18] report

[50:22] Yeah, thank you for that. I was

[50:23] gonna bring that up because I

[50:24] think that this committee should

[50:28] in its report similar to what Mr

[50:31] Quinn recommended in his report

[50:33] some of those things should

[50:34] also come from this committee

[50:37] that we recommend to house

[50:40] leadership that again our our

[50:42] purpose is to prevent this from

[50:44] happening again and restore

[50:46] trust in the process so some of

[50:48] the things that were in that

[50:51] report were to have a formal

[50:53] approval workflow system for

[50:55] reimbursements, direct spending

[50:58] the cost of things with some

[50:59] kind of approval process in

[51:01] place from someone else an

[51:03] expense log with the dates

[51:04] vendor's purpose receipts

[51:04] approval status

[51:08] a budget created an updated

[51:11] quarterly to be shared with the

[51:14] caucus to review a system for

[51:16] collecting the dues follow up

[51:17] with some way to follow up with

[51:19] members who are delinquent and

[51:22] some kind of consequences or

[51:23] system in place to help

[51:26] nonpaying members monthly

[51:28] bank account reconciliation

[51:31] and a written and approved plan

[51:32] for items that are purchased for

[51:34] the caucus which who which can

[51:34] be used in the future with

[51:38] some kind of inventory and and

[51:40] knowledge of where those items

[51:41] are to be stored. I just wanted

[51:44] to put those on the record too

[51:45] because I think that's through

[51:48] the process we've learned that

[51:51] we need that future caucus

[51:53] chairs need that future

[51:56] leadership folks need that and

[51:56] it's

[52:00] we're all we're all seeing that

[52:01] that should have been in place

[52:02] years ago and

[52:07] I I know that even our current

[52:09] caucus chairs wish that had been

[52:10] in place long ago so

[52:14] further questions, comments

[52:20] direction from committee what

[52:21] I made a couple of notes here

[52:22] that

[52:26] we have discussed that

[52:30] perhaps we could potentially

[52:30] recommend the speaker a request

[52:34] from our committee

[52:35] thatpresentativelindsay resigned

[52:37] from being caucus cochair for

[52:41] the rest of her term we also

[52:43] discussed and found out that

[52:45] there is the ability for the

[52:46] speaker to remove Representative

[52:49] Lindsey from committee

[52:52] assignments except for one

[52:56] so whatever leadership the

[52:58] speaker would consider in that

[53:00] regard is up to her

[53:05] are those at least those two

[53:07] things is there anything else

[53:08] that you know I'd like to hear

[53:11] folks comments and at least

[53:12] those

[53:13] potential outcomes here

[53:21] Represented soper thank you

[53:22] ma'amir

[53:24] ' m agreeable to those and

[53:28] would make a motion that the

[53:28] appropriate time

[53:35] Seeing no further comment than

[53:36] Representative Soper would you

[53:40] address the first

[53:43] I think we should do these

[53:47] separately oh yes Misss Chase

[53:48] thank you

[53:50] given that rule49F gives the

[53:52] committee the option to dismiss

[53:54] or the option to determine that

[53:56] you need to take action. You

[53:58] might consider first making a

[53:59] motion that you're deciding

[54:02] under49F to take action to make

[54:04] recommendations and then do

[54:05] separate motions on your

[54:06] recommendations.

[54:08] thank you you got

[54:09] thatpresentative Soper. All

[54:10] right

[54:12] I'll entertain mo

[54:14] thank you madam chair. I move

[54:16] that the committee finds under

[54:20] rule49F to take action in this

[54:20] matter.

[54:23] secondconded bypresentative

[54:24] Woodrow

[54:26] Miss Berger, please call the

[54:26] roll.

[54:30] p re s ent ative Garcia Sander

[54:30] Yes Maybebury yes

[54:37] oodrowper adam yes and that

[54:38] passes unanimously

[54:40] Representative Soper thank you

[54:42] madam chair. I move that the

[54:42] committee

[54:46] recommend a stern letter of

[54:48] recommendman be issued to

[54:48] Representative Lindsey

[54:52] and that she'd be removed from

[54:54] all of her committee and

[54:55] leadership assignments except

[54:58] one committee assignment per the

[54:58] house rules

[55:02] and further thatpresentative

[55:05] Lindsay be requested to resign

[55:06] from the position of Democratic

[55:07] caucus cochair

[55:12] I think that was clear enough

[55:17] second that seconded by

[55:18] Representative Garcia Sander

[55:20] Miss Berger, please

[55:24] did you want to say something?

[55:25] OK Miss Berger please call the

[55:27] roll. Representatives Garcia

[55:28] Sander Yesoodrow

[55:32] yes

[55:39] and thank you for that

[55:41] umpresentative Soper thank you

[55:42] madam chairir. I further move

[55:45] that the committee also include

[55:46] within our report that

[55:51] house leadership developed

[55:52] rules for best practices for the

[55:55] handling of both caucuses of

[55:56] financial matters

[56:01] Any further comment

[56:04] Miss Berger please call the

[56:05] roll.

[56:09] p re s ent ative s garciader Yes

[56:12] Maybeburyoodrow soper yes

[56:19] on that last motion will the

[56:21] record just reflects some of the

[56:23] things our report that I

[56:26] outlined or do we need to be any

[56:28] more specific than that or just

[56:30] leave it up to leadership. they

[56:32] will hear the list of things

[56:35] that I mentioned on the record

[56:37] but I'm just curious do we as a

[56:38] committee in our report need to

[56:39] include those.

[56:43] M Chase thank you madam chairir.

[56:46] your motion was pretty broad

[56:48] and open and not specific about

[56:49] the sorts of things that you

[56:51] want them to do specifically if

[56:53] you want to be more specific you

[56:54] should be have a more specific

[56:55] motion on that point.

[57:01] right I want to be more specific

[57:02] so

[57:06] you'll see 1 through 6 there I

[57:09] would like a motion to

[57:12] include those and then with a

[57:14] trailer or anything else that

[57:17] they see fit to add for the

[57:18] management of these

[57:19] fundspresentative Soper thank

[57:20] you ma'am sure

[57:23] as a more specific motion, I

[57:26] move that within the

[57:28] developing of rules for the

[57:31] management of the two caucuses

[57:34] funds that it include a formal

[57:36] approval of workflow systems for

[57:38] reimbursement, direct spending

[57:40] costs with leadership approval

[57:42] if needed a two expense logs

[57:44] with dates vendors purpose

[57:46] receipts and approval status.3,

[57:49] a budget created and updated

[57:50] quarterly is the best

[57:53] practice and available for

[57:54] anyone in the caucus to review

[57:57] for a system for collecting dues

[57:58] follow up with members who are

[58:00] delinquent and consequences for

[58:01] nonpaying members

[58:04] ive a monthly bank account

[58:07] reconciliation and six a written

[58:10] and approval plan for items

[58:11] purchased for the caucus which

[58:14] can be used in the future and an

[58:15] inventory and storage plan for

[58:16] those items.

[58:21] there a second seconded byre

[58:23] representative Mary Miss

[58:24] Berger please call a roll.

[58:27] p re s ent ative Sgarcia Sander

[58:28] Yes.

[58:30] Mabry oodrow yes

[58:34] that also passes unanimously

[58:39] Miss Chase, is there any

[58:41] further information that OLLS

[58:43] needs from us or any other

[58:46] action items that we need to

[58:49] follow up on Miss Chase. thank

[58:50] you madam chairir. I would

[58:53] recommend that the committee

[58:54] deputize

[58:57] one or two of you to work on

[58:59] work with us on developing the

[59:03] final report in the senate

[59:05] hearing in 2024 they had a

[59:07] specific motion authorizing the

[59:08] chair and vice chair or their

[59:10] designees to draft the final

[59:11] report and allow the committee

[59:13] members opportunity to provide

[59:16] input before making it final and

[59:17] then submitting it to the

[59:19] presiding officer so you might

[59:21] consider doing something of

[59:23] that nature and then we of

[59:24] course would work with the

[59:24] designees

[59:26] on preparing that draft report

[59:27] and circulating it

[59:32] I think we should pick the two

[59:34] people that are not going to be

[59:35] here next year.

[59:37] Representative Woodrow oh I

[59:39] moved to deputize the chair and

[59:42] vice chairs there a second

[59:48] we I guess we're voting on this

[59:50] yeah

[59:50] yeah I'd rather oodrow

[59:55] well Misserger please call

[59:57] the roll on that motion

[1:00:00] Representative Garcia Sander

[1:00:03] No.

[1:00:06] Maybery

[1:00:11] Yes

[1:00:14] yes soper

[1:00:18] yes

[1:00:21] am yes

[1:00:22] that passes um4 to1.

[1:00:27] OK sopresentative Soper and

[1:00:29] myself will be available to help

[1:00:32] OLs and also review the final

[1:00:34] report before sending it on

[1:00:35] its way

[1:00:39] any further comments? I I want

[1:00:41] to make one last comment. I

[1:00:42] really do want to thank all the

[1:00:46] staff you have been

[1:00:49] amazing in helping us we know

[1:00:51] this is been a journey that no

[1:00:54] other general assembly has had

[1:00:57] to to experience as far as

[1:01:00] going to this level so thank you

[1:01:02] so much for your help and your

[1:01:06] memos and research I also

[1:01:08] want to thank the these

[1:01:09] committee members for taking

[1:01:12] this task so seriously and

[1:01:12] forgiving at

[1:01:14] the time and attention that it

[1:01:18] deserved I think your actions

[1:01:21] and inquiry and questions

[1:01:24] have been really helpful.

[1:01:25] they've helped me a lot so I

[1:01:27] wanna thank you and also want to

[1:01:28] thank

[1:01:31] all the people who willingly

[1:01:35] came to testify under oath to

[1:01:36] help further inform the

[1:01:38] committee on this issue we

[1:01:39] really do appreciate your time

[1:01:40] and willingness. I know it

[1:01:42] wasn't an easy task for any of

[1:01:43] us

[1:01:46] going through this procedure

[1:01:48] but really do appreciate that

[1:01:51] everyone gave it the weight

[1:01:52] that it deserved and

[1:01:56] thank you again and with that

[1:01:56] this committee is adjourned.

House Committee on Ethics [Sep 04, 2026]

Transcript