House Committee on Ethics [Aug 05, 2026]

Is that any better? Yes, much better. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for being here today. We don't have anything to add at this point. We can certainly add under agenda item two when we get into the meat of things.

10 to 20 minutes after all representative lindsey is the subject of this ethics inquiry and giving her time to be able to fully talk about her perspective to me seems fair and adjudicative. And do you so move? And I move that we change our rules to go from 10 minutes to

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, so I would recommend just putting a caveat on number one, that we dispute whether the duties included an inherent obligation to account for, safeguard, and avoid commingling personal funds with fund assets. and a fiduciary capacity independent of the existence of any written policy. I just don't want it to be read in such a way that we are foreclosing or predetermining whether or not what occurred breached a fiduciary or other duty simply because there wasn't a written policy.

Yeah, I'm happy to circulate language so Mr. DeHerrera can see it, but it would be the party's dispute whether the duties included an inherent obligation to avoid commingling personal funds with fund assets, independent of the existence of any written policy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also would agree with Representative Woodrow, but also add something to the effect of the custom and practice of what's expected of a caucus co-chair that the items that are listed here, I would say, all fall within that custom and practice. I mean, that's why we're talking about stipulation of facts. But we should definitely have, and maybe Representative Woodrow's language covers this, but something that definitely covers the fact that it may not be written down. There may not be a manual. I mean, kind of like running a club's treasurer's account doesn't necessarily come with a thick set of guidance. The same with a caucus. And so I guess for those reasons, I would agree with Representative Woodrow.

Yeah. And so I appreciate that, Representative Soper. So my comment, you know, sort of refers to the footnote that was dropped. Where it says there's no written document establishing this fact and there was no written description of the caucus co-chair position. You know, I just don't want that fact that there's no written documents or written description to predetermine anything. I think the heart of this dispute, and I think Rep. Lindsay and her counsel would probably agree, is whether or not there was some type of obligation to avoid commingling personal funds. I think there's a dispute whether there was an inherent fiduciary duty. I just want to make sure that the stipulation, to the extent that we agree to do this exercise and have a stipulation of facts, which, spoiler alert, I think we should. I think that it can help streamline issues for all sides on this and make for a more efficient hearing. um so mr de herrera i appreciate you taking the first stab at this um you know the laboring or on it i i just want to be clear that by stipulating to the fact we are not conceding that there was or was not a fiduciary duty or other inherent obligation to avoid commingling so i would suggest is that I'll draft up language in some type of form and get it over to Mr. DeHarrera so

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think that it's appropriate for the committee to dialogue with Mr. D. Herrera in order to resolve any questions regarding the stipulated facts.

Good morning. Can you hear me, Madam Chair? Yeah, we can.

We appreciate you giving us this time this morning. We appreciate you considering these proposed stipulations. We've proposed these to help streamline the hearing next week, obviously. we've drafted these in a way that we thought is not meant to be controversial or slanted, but rather just a presentation of what happened, not necessarily what it means or why or how it happened. I think those will be the things that we discuss and present at the hearing. And so what I tried to do here was establish the what in a somewhat objective or as objective as we could put it out there with the understanding that I am Representative Lindsay's advocate. And I appreciate everything this morning and all the time. So thank you very much for allowing me to be here and to participate. I agree with Representative Woodrow and Representative Soper. I really like Representative Soper's language, custom and practice. I think those would be good additions to this first proposed fact. As you stated, Madam Chair, this is just a description. of what the expectation, I think, or the custom or the practice of this position was. And we tried to put it in words that are somewhat objective. There's a lot of ways you could describe it. We thought this was broad enough but also precise enough. But we're happy to take any amendments. Representative Woodrow, I'm happy to look at your proposed language. I think what you're touching on, and I think it's an important thing, and I agree with this issue that you're raising, is that we don't want the footnotes to become controversial. And there are a few of these footnotes where there's no document you can look at to objectively say, yes, this happened on this date. And this is one of those. And it might even be easier, Representative Woodrow, to remove the language from the footnotes that might be implying something about a duty or an obligation rather than add a caveat. So we're happy to remove language from this footnote and other footnotes as well. And you all as a committee might also think that if you're going to adopt something, you don't need to include the footnotes in what you adopt. The footnotes can be there for reference for other people to see where the basis or where the support is for each of these proposed facts. So I didn't draft the footnotes necessarily as a stipulation with the expectation that you all would include those. You can. You certainly can. I tried to do all of this in a very objective way, but there are some things that do, as Representative Woodrow caught on, imply certain things. And we don't mean to do that or need to do that. So just one final point, and then I'll turn the the microphone back to you. It's great, I think, or helpful if the committee can adopt these proposed stipulations or some of them or many of them, but it's also not critical. When we go through the hearing and present our testimony through the different witnesses and through the documents, the what, which is here in these proposed stipulations, will come through. So even if the committee doesn't adopt these as stipulations, these can certainly serve as our roadmap going through the hearing and all of this will come in. And we think most of this or all of it is somewhat uncontroversial. So we propose these as useful. We hope they are useful. Even if the committee doesn't adopt all of them or many of them, that would be fine as well. We're just trying to make the process reasonable, fair, just, and efficient. So with that, that's all I have. I'm here to answer questions, and I'll go on mute unless anyone has a question for me.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you to Mr. De Herrera. I agree. I think this exercise, like I said, is helpful for streamlining the issues. I do think that overall what you sent us was fairly neutral. Just want to make sure we're as clear as possible. Clarity is kindness, especially in a hearing like this.

Thank you. You were moving quickly there, and I realized that. I'm sorry.

Well, I guess both seven and eight. So jumping to seven, I guess one thing that I do want to note here is I don't disagree with any of the words that are written. I think within number seven, that is entirely true. And I just want to make that clear. However, I also kind of want to reserve, I guess, in some way that just because there wasn't a type of policy or procedure that the caucus had actually written doesn't mean that that deviates from what is the norm of a organization that has a fund of, say, less than $100,000. that's a, I mean, it may not even be an incorporated corporation. I mean, they could be, you know, a caucus at the Capitol, like a Republican or a Democrat caucus. It could be a stamp club. It could be, you know, your Boy Scout club. There can be many different examples where it doesn't necessarily come with a set of policies, procedures, or guidance for financial or accounting or other types of practices. So I don't know if it's appropriate to just kind of make note that while we agree with the fact here, that's not to say that the fact is encompassing of the nature of how these organizations operate.

That, yes, this is the fact we are not. But simply by conceding that that is a fact, we we are not determining or prejudging whether or not that breached or complied with any. express or implied or inherent duty to manage the fund properly. Right. And so I think giving that caveat language, Rep Sober, addresses, you know, your concern, which is, you know, just because we're agreeing to this fact does not mean that we are also agreeing that the fund was therefore properly managed or that the absence of written procedures, you know, negates any type of obligation. Again, that's what the hearing is about.

part of the same theme? From a drafting standpoint, I agree with Mr. De Herrera that there's many ways we can phrase this. I would think mentioning it once up front would be enough. If we feel the need to refer back to that initial statement, see paragraph one or whatever, We can do that. But I think once it's reserved, it's pretty clear that it flows down.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do have a question on number eight.

So it says that the co-chair of the caucus provided no compensation to the co-chairs, nor did the caucus provide the co-chairs with any additional resources or staff to assist them in performing their duties. if you look through um the evidence that was supplied to us representative lindsey's aide responded to an email in which she said uh here are you know the evidence the committee is asking for and that she had aided in the performance of some of the duties for the caucus and i I do see from a very technical standpoint that that would be her aid and not a caucus supplied aid. So I think we can kind of agree with the exact letters that are here in front of us. But I don't want to necessarily have such a bold statement that we negate the fact that there was an aide and there is writing in the record that does indicate this aide was aiding in the performance of caucus chair duties, essentially. And so I don't know if that's something we include in a footnote or make reference to, but I do think that's important here.

doing a lot of lifting here. I think we all understand that Rep. Lindsay had help from her existing resources, right? I think the point of Mr. De Herrera and Rep. Lindsay's inclusion, And I don't want to speak for Mr. De Herrera, but my assumption is, is that it's to highlight that in addition to her aid, legislative aid, she wasn't provided anything beyond that special to assist with the fact that she was also taking on the duties of caucus co-chair. And I don't know how much weight that fact carries one way or the other. but I do think that that was the intent and I, that's how I read it. So I'm not sure we need to edit it. If you have language that you think we should include, I'm obviously happy to more than happy to take a look at that.

I would agree with Representative Woodrow and you I mean I don't necessarily disagree with anything that's written and I wanted to make that clear I just didn't want it to drift away from the fact that within the record it's very clear that her aide talked about performing some of the duties for the caucus, including ordering food, even providing the expense statements to this committee. And that indicates a pretty high level of staff involvement here, which could be important to us as fact finders. I don't know, until we actually like dive into this on next week's hearing. Yeah. So I'll suggest that we add just to clarify additional in that sentence, in addition to their legislative aid. So that we're really clear. Okay. So we'll edit that one just to be clear. Yeah. Madam Chair. Yes. Representative Woodrow.

OK, I got that. number nine has to do with Rep. Lindsay paying dues in the 2324 General Assembly and the Those dues came from her campaign account, Rep. Woodrow.

I agree. Any further discussion on that? Okay, we're going to edit that one. Okay. Tenth one has to do with when Representative Titone's debit card was stolen and used without authorization. The report of that theft and the crediting back to the account.

Any other issues with this one? All right. Seeing none. Number 11. In 2024, Rep Lindsay wrote herself a check in the amount of $63.58. $68.68.

I agree. Anyone else? Okay. I also agree. We'll edit that one as well. The 12th one regards Rep. Lindsay writing herself a check for $2,500 as a return of membership dues.

herrera can review with his client to see if they agree to put it in it's not going to be a very onerous thing to prove at the hearing um but i suggest for the sake of streamlining things we put

worth discussing here, Representative Woodrow? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I have to go run and take a call in just a minute. But I do want to note that from sort of how we're sequencing things that on January 21st, a $500 check was issued from the checking account to Rep. Lindsay with no notation. On March 21st, a check for 489 was issued and recorded on the transaction ledger as reimbursement no purpose. I think that we need to include that in the stipulated facts. And when we send over our red line to Mr. DeHarrera, he can review that with his client.

Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just add that this is important for the sequencing of events that happen that we're all agreeing are facts, that they aren't disputed. So I would like to see that included as well, because to me, that's just one of those that we don't have to then go through and have to establish next week that we can just say, yes, we agree. Now, how the story goes from there can pivot one way or another. We don't know how that story is going to take shape, but at least we're just saying that this we agree on happened.

I mean, were they loans? Were they cash advances? Were they small payments towards her own caucus dues? These are all questions that I'm not real sure we really know the answer to. and I would want to make sure that if we keep 15 or say new 16 because we adding in something else but 15 as is then we should add a sentence or two with it just to reflect that as well Because even if the solvency of the petty fund was in question and there were no more financial resources to pay for like a caucus lunch, that doesn't mean that Rep. Lindsay had the obligation to loan the fund money. And that's where I'm still a little bit confused as to what happened here. I think this is a little bit murky in my mind.

more clear i just think it might be simpler to drop it um just my personal opinion representative um maybree thank you madam chair i i agree uh uh with you madam chair that we should drop it and And, you know, to build on some of the points that both you and Rep Soper were making, in my mind, this was never anything relevant because for most of the time period and we had bank statements from the account, right, there are reimbursement. And then we get the whole spreadsheet of allegedly what these reimbursements are for. There was a large, large, large portion of that timeline where the bank account had $26,000, $36,000, $40,000, $17,000 in it. And so to me, it didn't necessarily make sense in terms of that relating to why there are all of these reimbursements. And so I agree that putting it in there sort of implies that there's a link. that I was never able to make. I will recognize, you know, potentially during November of 2025, it did seem like at that point specifically, the funds were pretty depleted. But that's also what you would expect, right? Because that was the new class coming in anyways. And so I think it's easier just to delete or – and maybe if Rep Soper disagrees, we could just drop it at this point. Or we could add a sentence like Rep Woodrow has suggested in other places that said – that says something like the parties dispute whether this has any relevancy. But for me, this point isn't necessarily relevant to any of the other things that we're discussing.

Thank you for the question. I follow everybody's comments. I think you all are wrestling with the real issues with some of these things. I don't disagree with Representative Mabry's statements that for most of the time, and it's all in the records, as he stated, there was plenty of funds in there. But there were certain times where I think, and this will come out, this will be part of the discussion, her testimony is that she saw that the fund was going to fall negative, and she did something about that. It didn't happen very often. I believe it's three checks that where she did that, three instances. And we're happy with the committees taking this seriously and being thoughtful. And we can understand if the committee wants to hold off on this or based on the chair's initial statements on this proposed fact. another solution might be to just separate that final piece of this fact, which is at different times, the caucus did not have sufficient funds to cover all of its expenses. And if you just separate that from the earlier parts of that proposed stipulation, then there's not that implication that it was necessarily because of the dues. We don't think that that connection is necessary for what we are or what you all are addressing as far as what Representative Lindsay did or didn't do and what that means. So that connection is not necessary. And we tried to separate it in this proposed fact, but you could also completely separate them and just make those different facts. So there's a lot of ways to fix it. Hopefully that answers your question, Representative Soper. If not, let me know. Thank you.

you were offline when I said I would prefer to drop this because I still have a question on whether like I don't have a firm connection that because at times there were insufficient funds was it due to folks not paying their dues or was it due to the fund being over allocated and not budgeted correctly to be able to hit those lows so I don't want to make it a stipulated fact that It seems that they tied together in this particular item I just soon drop it and let us have that be part of our discussion during the hearing And I realize that number 16 on our list does go on to say that the caucus did not have sufficient funds, and then Rep. Lindsay deposited her personal funds into the account and incurred expenses on her breath. Like they are somewhat tied together. And I appreciate Mr. DeHarrera saying that they tried to separate them by having them two different numbers here. But I just take issue with what we have here.

Oh, wait. Oh, wait. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I have to remember to use the microphone instead of the computer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted, for clarity's sake, I'm not commenting on whether or not to drop this. Obviously, that's the committee's decision. Just for clarity's sake, we should be sticking to the numbering in the proposed stipulated facts that came from Mr. D. Herrera.

Not on this. Okay.

I'm fine dropping. They were number 15. Yes. I'm fine dropping it. I was going to add a caveat, but if we're dropping 14, we could drop 15 as well.

Okay And you calling that That 15 That 15 Perfect Sorry It all right 16 in April of 2025 That where we at Where Speaker McCluskey requests some documentation we had a

and I think I think Speaker McCluskey did this new checking account the following month.

I'm fine striking everything that starting with during this same month, because basically I think the way it was written by Mr. De Herrera makes it seem like Representative Lindsay affirmatively turned over the checkbook and debit card. Whereas I read the facts as the speaker had the petty cash fund moved to a new bank account. and so there seems to potentially be a dispute over who the actor was so I'm fine either putting in our language or my language Speaker McCluskey had the petty cash fund moved to a new bank account or just striking everything you know starting with during the same month and just and just leaving it at you know to end on Representative Lindsay had received from the caucus checking account period It might just be cleaner to strike in the same month.

Rep Woodrow? No, sorry. My hand should be down.

Rob Woodrow? Yeah, so on this one, I see that it starts with his preliminary report on June 20th, 2025. I was just going to add in that on June 14th, he actually submitted his review spreadsheet showing the financial activity November 22 to April 25 It just for the clarity of the record that before he submitted his preliminary report he submitted his spreadsheet. Just just trying to be a nerdy lawyer, being accurate.

Rep. Woodrow, but we'll double check before we send it back to Mr. DeHerrera.

Yeah, quick question. And I agree with Representative Woodrow that we had also offered that. And do you all see the red line that I sent, the one that it's got these footnotes, which we've been going through? But I made a few of the red line revisions, and hopefully they show up because they're Exactly what you're saying, Representative Woodrow, on this one and the previous one for, you know, sake of completeness. We had also added that and it shows up as a red line. And I hope that you all see that in the first one.

I'm sorry, Mr. DeHerrera. I do see it. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Also on the.

About October 2025. Representative Woodrow.

I would add a sentence saying the parties will confirm.

i apologize sir either one is either one is fine yeah it's a spanish last name obviously that can be said different ways de herrera is spanish but either way it's good thank you all right

I believe those are two different documents. So there's an email on October 1, where if I'm correct, Mr. Quinn submitted a narrative. And then on the next day, he submitted the report, which was, I believe, the spreadsheet. And it's that spreadsheet is dated October 1, but he submitted it in an email on October 2. Oh, yeah. Two different submissions, each with a different document. The first one on October 1st was the narrative. It's maybe four pages. And then the second one is the actual report spreadsheet.

Okay, so we have no need to edit this one? Correct. Okay. All right. Next is number 20. Reimbursements to Rep. Lindsay between Mr. Quinn found that, etc. So this is reiterating things that were in Mr. Quinn's report. Any issues with this, Representative Soper?

Representative Woodrow.

I agree with that. We can certainly stipulate that this is what was in his report. but that's it

Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier I'd seen Mr. De Herrera's hand up.

Thank you. I was only going to say, what we wanted to do here is what you said, Madam Chair, which is, this is what Mr. Quinn found. Not place any judgment or conclusion on whether it was a good finding or a a bad finding or a complete finding, but this was what he found. And the point I was going to make was, I just included everything that Mr Quinn found that was substantive towards Representative Lindsey performance He has other findings or recommendations for future going activities but we just for completeness sake we quoted him exactly and we put all of his quotes as they related to Representative Lindsey performance

Just for clarification, Madam Chair, you discussed adding a paragraph, a new paragraph after fact number 21, but you never specifically addressed number 21 and whether or not you agreed to include it.

that's fine um i actually kind of thought we were still on 21 okay i was you know moving ahead so 21 also um just states what reiterates what mr quinn concluded um it's what mr quinn concluded so go ahead and reps over thank you ma'am sure yeah i was sitting here thinking that I mean, we can do it either one or two ways as far as just a note that we recognize this is what Mr. Quinn found, but it's not necessarily accurate. It's not necessarily the end all. And do we put kind of boilerplate language under both 21 and 20 or do we have, say, a new 22 or 23? I don't know where we are on this numbering now when we started.

we extend that maybe to include any quoted anything that been quoted within the stipulated facts that that provision would apply to that it not just limited to 21 and 22 or sorry 21 and 20 Because we had another quote in 19 as well.

A comment for after this one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Did you discuss number 22 on October 20, 2025, Mr. Quinn submitted. Okay, thank you. Yes, and we have no issue with that one.

I think it makes sense to insert either after the paragraph, Speaker McCluskey also reviewed the financial activities and the documentation supplied by Representative Lindsay, or perhaps earlier, depending on how we want to do it, a statement that on August 15th, 2025, the Speaker sent Representative Lindsay a letter describing her handling of the fund as unacceptable. She identified a shortfall that hadn't been reconciled of, I think, $1,708 or so and directing that the shortfall be repaid and that all receipts be submitted. I think in the red line version that we send back to Mr. De Herrera, we can include that for him to review with his client and determine whether or not they want to accept it or not.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just say that that's important also, Dad, because I believe the stipulated facts should reflect what we all agree on in terms of the timeline, because that's the most important piece that we're trying to parse through. And if we can at least agree on that, then we can start getting into the minutiae that's really at dispute.

The one that starts with November 3rd Yes that number 24 November 3rd It should be 2025 is my edit Oh it says 2026 Yes

I think that I just want to, I had initially come up with a sentence to put in here, but I think it makes more sense to just ask Mr. De Herrera to confirm with his client that all support for the $6,853 in reimbursable expenses, that Rep. Lindsay plans on introducing at the hearing. Just want to confirm one last time that that's all been submitted. And to the extent that there's anything else that she wants to submit to substantiate the $6,853 in reimbursable expenses, that she do that now so we're not reviewing it for the first time at the hearing.

okay yes thank you representative woodrow confirmed and we and i will work on that and make sure that happens if there are any additional documentation we'll get that to you I don't believe there is but we'll work well I'll confirm that thank you

Thank you. In regards to. Yeah. But but I realized my notes bled over. It really should be number eight. So, OK, so on number eight, we're going to edit that to reference the state provided legislative aid.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the committee instruct our staff to produce a red line reflecting what you, Madam Chair, just read into the record as far as changes that the committee has agreed on during this hearing and send that to Mr. De Herrera and his client with instructions that they communicate back to the committee. this committee in written form prior to the hearing, so say August 12th, as to whether or not they accept those stipulations or not.

Representative Garcia-Sander? Yes. Mabry? Yes. Woodrow? Yes. Soper? Yes. Manager? Yes. All right.

thank you madam chair just to clarify rebecca kisner was not on the committee's list she was just on representative lindsey's witness list and they have withdrawn their request for her to appear okay thank you very much for that

All right. So hang on a second, Rep Sober. I certainly we could do two separate motions and accept Mr. DeHarrera's modification of their list and then go on to see if we want to modify our list because there was some overlap, but then there was not. So if you would restate your motion, if you if we would like to just accept Mr. DeHarrera's and Rep. Lindsay's modification of their list.

Anybody? I'll second. Thank you.

We are not. We are only accepting the modification of their list. And then we can modify our list. Correct. Okay, great. All right. Seeing no further discussion on that, we are voting to accept modification of Mr. DeHerrera and Representative's witness list.

All right. That passes. Now we're on to, since we're kind of opening up the rules and procedures, that we can also modify our list if we choose to. Representative Woodrow.

As we may call her? Is that what you're saying? Right. We're not forced to call any of these witnesses. These are all. Yeah. Just because we put someone on our list doesn't mean that we are beholden to calling them. It just means that we have the option of calling them if we choose. Well, we are requesting these folks to show up in person and trying to schedule them for these days. So it would. I think it makes it a little difficult for them to know whether or not we need them or would like them to be there. So it's a little tricky if we're.

just to get someone seated ask the tribunal do you have any questions and Everyone goes, nope. And then we just cost them a time and a trip down to the Capitol for nothing. So I hear what you're saying, Chair. I just think given the nature of the proceeding, we're not able to delineate will call versus may call like you would in a trial. Just logistics wise, though, if this if a person is scheduled for a particular slot on our agenda and our questions for that person. or have not come to us yet. Like we don't, I guess that we would still have the ability to call them back. I just, again, I'm just trying to figure out how we're going to proceed with the hearing. If they're in the, you know, and I hear what you're saying and I get it, but I'm also just trying to like play this out. How's it actually going to work? Let's see. Lots of hands up. I'm going to go to Miss Chase.

Root Babry?

because, you know, what we're trying to do with these questions is find what the facts are and get at evidence that wasn't on paper. And so I do think we need to recognize that we need some flexibility.

so we

we're going to not take off Jacqueline Davison or Kate Ehrlich and he is proposing that we add Representative Marshall to our list and then OLLS will do what they do as they did for our potential hearing in June to get folks to the so that they are available for us to speak with. Representative Soper.

knowing that you may be waiting there while we're still asking questions of one person. Yes and realize that we had agreed to a procedure where Rep Lindsay witnesses the ones she called are going first with their questions And, you know, you guys can review the procedure. So the ones that are on our list are actually later anyway, which will help us with some of those follow up questions that we may not have in our heads yet. So with that, I'm hearing that we would like to modify our list to also drop Majority Leader Duran, keep the other folks on our list, and add Rep. Marshall. Did I get that right?

Is that the list that everybody is working off of? I had just written down the names of the folks that we had called. I don't, it's not necessarily that schedule. Okay. Who do you have a question about? Well, I'm curious.

But did we decide to not include Representative Joseph? No, Representative Joseph was always on our list. And she's still on our list. OK, I just didn't see her on the schedule. It could be that we hadn't because we never went forward with those dates that OLS didn't lock in her time yet. And so didn't add. So that was really just a penciled in kind of schedule back then. So it's my understanding, and I'm going to look to Miss Chase if she nods her head, that on our list, we still have the same people that Rep. Lindsay has, McCluskey, Quinn, Tatone, Rep. Lindsay. But we also had Majority Leader Duran, Jacqueline Davison, Rebecca. No, we didn't have Rebecca. Kate Ehrlich, Junie Joseph and Bob Marshall. Well, we want to add Bob Marshall. OK, so I'm getting nods. So the question before us today is modification of our own list to also drop majority leader to the ran and add Representative Marshall. Getting some head nods from this chase. Thank you, Representative Soper.

thank you Mr Vice Chair this is something that I can raise after you vote on this list but just to make it clear on the record what the committee is proposing as their new list of witnesses it would be Rep. Lindsay, Speaker McCluskey, Mr. Quinn, Representative Joseph, Representative Titone, Kate Ehrlich, Jacqueline Davison, and Representative Marshall.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move that the committee modify our witness list, and I'll just say it once again for the record, just so we're all abundantly clear. Jacqueline Davison, we're going to strike majority leader duran we'll have kate ehrlich representative jenny joseph of course representative mandy lindsey speaker julia mccluskey uh william quinn representative brianna titone and then we're adding representative bob marshall that's correct is there a second second that all right great uh no further discussion miss berger please call the roll

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do see Mr. DeHerrera's hand raised, and I believe it's on this point, so I'll defer to him.

Thank you. Yes, if we don't need to propound questions in a written format, that's fine. We were just offering this as a possibility if some of the witnesses that either we or the committee would call could not be there in person. We were fine with this. So that was just something we were offering up. But I would, going back to the witness list, ask the committee to consider whether we think we can do all of this in a day and a half with five tribunal members and all those witnesses. I don't know that all of that content can be done in a day and a half. It might be, but it's just something that we all should consider just going forward because if we're running out of time, we might need to make some contingencies about that. Also for sequencing, I've spoken with Ms. Chase about this. The way we sort of see it, we'll be flexible, obviously, because witnesses have lives and other commitments. but sort of the sequencing of the witnesses that I see it logically flowing, the best would be to do Mr. Quinn or Speaker McCluskey first, then proceed with Titone, and then we would put up Representative Lindsey, and then somewhere in there we squeeze in the committee's witnesses. So that's sort of the sequencing. I don't know if that's helpful, but I thought I would share that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did just want to acknowledge for the committee and Mr. DeHarrera's information that the schedule of witnesses will be dictated by the rules of procedure that you adopted, indicating that Representative Lindsay's witnesses would go first, followed by the committee's witnesses. And also, we are working with the witnesses in terms of their availability. So that is a caveat as well. Given that the witnesses are appearing voluntarily, we are trying to accommodate their schedules. So that may result in the appearance and the order of appearance being slightly different than the way it's been reflected today.

Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to highlight for the committee that in your procedures that you've adopted, they don't contemplate necessarily that you would recall witnesses at a later time, although they do contemplate that the hearing may be extended beyond the dates that you already indicated So I just wanted to raise that as something that we will look at more carefully to make sure that your adopted procedures allow that I mean the order of witnesses is for example for Representative Lindsay witnesses they would call the witness and ask questions and the committee could ask questions and then Mr D Herrera would have the opportunity to ask questions again of those witnesses before they were released The procedures don't contemplate that you would later, either the following day, later in the day or at another hearing, recall those witnesses. So on the fly, I'm not sure you need to modify the procedures. I just wanted to flag that as something that we may be bringing back to you as potential modification to your procedures.

Representative Woodrow. Yeah, I think one issue that we should probably decide on now, again, for the sake of clarity for everyone, is the standard, the burden of proof that we're going to be requiring. Given that it's not a criminal tribunal, I don't think beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard that we should be judging the evidence on. I think it should be a preponderance standard. And I think that establishing that now will avoid us getting into a sticky situation where folks claim they didn't know what the standard was, that they were confused about it, that it changed at some point. I would move that we adopt a standard of preponderance of the evidence so that everyone is on the same page though.

Mr. DeHarrera? We agree. I believe that the, as Representative Woodrow stated, preponderance of the evidence seems to be the appropriate standard for factual matters.

Thank you. If I could just go back to a point that Ms. Chase made. During our examination or presentation of the witnesses, I'm also very comfortable if any of the committee members want to make a question while we're doing our presentation. For example, we'll have Mr. Quinn walk us through his report. I think it fine and appropriate and probably more efficient if anyone has a question during that process to go ahead and speak up Judges interrupt us frequently as they want to so I invite you all to do the same

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question on the Rep. Joseph subpoena, and I know that in the end she did waive service, but does it still transfer to this committee hearing, or was it locked to the earlier proposed one in June? Because I want to make sure that she is going to be there to testify.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did speak with Representative Joseph about her ability and willingness to attend and appear before the committee for this next hearing. I asked her if she needed us to reissue the subpoena. I didn't really get a clear answer from her, but she did indicate that she's able to appear on the 14th. At the committee's direction, we can reissue the subpoena with the date and time to appear. Again, she did indicate that she was willing and provided her availability, so I'm not clear that she won't appear unless the subpoena is presented to her or reissued to her, but we will defer to the committee's preference on that. You did already approve issuing a subpoena to her, and under normal circumstances, we would just update and reissue the subpoena. So we'll take your direction on that. And then I do have another question for you after.

Rep Soper. Thank you, ma'am. Sharon, I would agree completely that we should update and reissue the subpoena. And I guess my question would be, would that require a vote of this committee to do so?

So this is the hearing date change. We're just updating the subpoena.

Yes, Madam Chair, and thank you to Ms. Berger for reminding me of this question we got from Mr. Quinn. He is appearing with counsel, but his counsel may not be available to appear in person at the time that we are looking to schedule him to appear. So I wanted to get permission from the committee to allow Mr. Quinn's counsel to appear remotely while he will appear in person.

Ms. Chase? Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies for not bringing this up during the discussion of the witness lists. In terms of scheduling the witnesses and based on prior conversations we've had, we were allotting certain amounts of time for each of the witnesses based on the sense of how long the committee and Mr. De Carrera had to question them. So I wanted to confirm those time slots with you all or see if we needed to make any adjustments to them. with regard to Mr. Quinn and the speaker we were allocating an hour for each of them and then we were allotting 30 minutes for all other witnesses of course an hour or so or maybe more for Representative Lindsay Representative Joseph we weren't sure if 30 minutes or an hour and we don't know your direction for Representative Marshall And this is all for purposes of us being able to give them a window of time to appear, recognizing that these are estimates of time, but we don't want to suggest that someone needs to be here for 30 minutes when the committee might need them for an hour and a half.

Mr. De Herrera. I think that Mr. Quinn and Speaker McCluskey will probably bleed over an hour. They could be hour and a half.

Ms. Chase. Thank you. So to be clear, we will allocate 90 minutes for the speaker and Mr. Quinn, an hour for Rep. Joseph and Rep. Marshall, 30 minutes for Rep. Titone, Ms. Ehrlich, Ms. Davison, and then Rep. Lindsay will – I'm not clear if she's going at the end of all of the witnesses or before the committee witnesses and whether or not we should designate. If she's at the end, we don't need to designate a time slot, but if we need to work her within, then I do need a time period, and maybe Mr. De Herrera can help with that too.

that makes sense to me to uh to put uh present Miss Lindsay at the end if Quinn and Speaker McCluskey are an hour and a half I think it'd be safe to to time slot uh Representative Lindsay for two hours. It might be less, but I think just a matter of safety, that would be, I think, prudent for us, and we'd be comfortable with her being the final witness.

Thank you Madam Chair Elena Love Office of Water State of Legal Services So I would just note for Representative Soper that the process does somewhat provide for this sort of the sense of the bookend for Representative Lindsey behalf as earlier today the committee did vote to extend the time for opening statements So you mentioned laying out the state of mind and the factual sort of what was going on at that time and that could be something that Mr. DeHerrera lays out in the beginning. So it's possible that that gets out there in a different format perhaps than what you're thinking, but the process does sort of provide for that already.