[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.