April 22, 2026 · Committee on Ethics · 13,085 words · 10 speakers · 208 segments
House Committee on Ethics will come to order. Ms. Berger, please call the roll.
Representatives Garcia-Sander?
Present.
Mabry?
Here.
Woodrow?
Here.
Soapberg?
Here.
Madam Chair?
Here. We are here this morning. with a complaint that has come forward through the House to examine and talk about this complaint coming forward from Representative Marshall involving Representative Lindsay. And so we're going to turn it over here to our OLS staff to walk us through procedure and guidelines again, and then we'll proceed with our first opening meeting here on this issue. So who would like to begin? Ms. Chase.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Christy Chase, Office of Legislative Legal Services. With me today is Yelena Love, our advisor of statutes in the Office of Legislative Legal Services and Director Ed DiCecco. We also have backup support from Jen Berman, and also Claire Hafner in our office is going to be assisting behind the scenes as well. That doesn't mean, having five staff does not mean that this is five staff worthy. Hopefully, we'll see. So I know you all know about Rule 49, but we have a new complaint before you, so I'm going to go through the process under Rule 49, and then we will talk further about open meetings and Public Records Act, probable cause standard, and then we'll get into the meat of the complaint and the evidence you have before you and what you might want to seek. So first off, under Rule 49A, any person with knowledge concerning misconduct involving legislative duties by a member of the House may file a written signed complaint with the Speaker. The complaint must set forth the facts that constitute the alleged misconduct and specify the statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, or other ethical principles alleged to have been violated. In this case, Representative Marshall filed a signed written complaint with the Speaker on January 26, 2026. I will note the complaint refers to the year 2025. I think that was just a mistake. It was, in fact, filed this year. Alleging misconduct by Representative Lindsay regarding her management of the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund. The complaint alleges facts constituting the alleged misconduct and alleges that Representative Lindsey's conduct was, quote, unethical and potentially criminal and violated her fiduciary duties. As I mentioned, Ms. Love will get into the details of the complaint in a little bit. House Rule 49A requires the Speaker to consult with the majority and minority leaders about the complaint and ultimately determine whether the complaint should be dismissed because it does not appear to be meritorious or if it should be referred to the House Committee on Ethics. Here, the House leadership unanimously determined that the complaint could not be dismissed and thus triggering the appointment of this committee under House Rule 49B. The committee was appointed on Monday, April 20th, and today, April 22nd, is your first meeting. Your task right now is dictated by House Rule 49C. You tasked with making a preliminary investigation of the complaint to determine whether there is probable cause that a violation may have occurred House Rule 49C provides the basis for the timeline that you have before you First, under that timeline, Representative Lindsay has the opportunity to provide an answer to the complaint if she so chooses. And if she does, the deadline for that is next Thursday, April 30th. That's 10 days after the committee is formed. Additionally, the time period for you to conduct this preliminary investigation under the rule is 30 days, so you have until May 20th. You don't have to take until May 20th if you don't need all of that time, but May 20th is your absolute deadline for concluding your preliminary investigation and making your determination on whether or not there's probable cause that a violation may have occurred. That preliminary investigation, as you probably remember, consists of reviewing the complaint. The answer, if there is one, and any other evidence compiled at your request. But during this preliminary investigation, you may not receive testimony or other evidence from any other source. At the conclusion of your investigation, under House Rule 49C, if you find no violation has occurred, then you must dismiss the complaint. On the other hand, under House Rule 49D, if you determine that probable cause exists to find that a violation may have occurred, you must notify Representative Lindsay, and then she has the opportunity within seven days of that notice to request a hearing. If a hearing is requested, then the committee will need to determine its procedures for conducting the hearing and the parameters of the hearing, and you'll need to commence the hearing within 14 days after it's requested. There's no timeline for completing that hearing. It's just it needs to be started within 14 days. If a hearing is not requested, and I think you're familiar with this process, if a hearing is not requested, then the custom and practice based on two prior ethics committees is that you issue a final report and you may or may not include recommendations in that final report. If a hearing is held, then under House Rule 49F, after the hearing, the committee can dismiss the complaint, or if you find that action should be taken, then you may make appropriate recommendations to the House. Those recommendations can include reprimand, censure, or expulsion, the latter of which requires two-thirds affirmative vote of the body. I'll also note that under House Rule 49I, the committee can adopt rules of procedure for your proceedings, hearings, preliminary investigation. And if we get to a hearing stage for this committee, then for sure you'll need to be looking at adopting some procedures for the conduct of that hearing. That's generally my overview of House Rule 49, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that.
And if you don't have any questions, I'll turn it over to Director DiCecco to start with Agenda item three, which we'll be talking about House Rule 49E and the open meetings law and public records. Any questions for Christy Chase? All right, Director DiCecco. Thank you. Good morning,
Madam Chair, members of the committee. Ed DiCecco from the Office of Legislative Legal Services. I'm going to speak to you today about the application of CORA and the open meetings law. House Rule 49E provides that all proceedings of the committee shall be governed by the Colorado to Open Records Act or CORA and the Open Meetings Law or the OML. And you've received a memorandum that describes the application of both of those to the current proceedings. For the OML, this creates an unusable situation because the law defines a meeting as any type of gathering to discuss public business. For purposes of the application of the OML to the General Assembly however the definition of public business that could apply in this situation applies to other matters before a statutory committee, any type of interim committee, or committee of reference. As the ethics committee is not necessarily one of those three types, therefore the work of the committee is arguably not public business subject to the open meeting law. However, I think there are two compelling reasons that the Chair McCormick could determine that these proceedings are indeed subject to the open meetings law. First, the plain language of the rule. House Rule 49E provides that all proceedings of the committee shall be governed by the OML. Governed means to control, direct, and strongly influence the actions and conduct of, which suggests that House Rule 49E may be interpreted as establishing an independent requirement that the OML controls the conduct of ethics committee meetings, irrespective of whether those meetings are subject to the requirements of the OML by its own terms. The second reason is consistency. The Committee on Ethics that considered the complaint against Representative Ron Weinberg conducted its business under the OML. So did multiple Senate committees on ethics that met after Senate Bill 24157, which is what amended the definition of public business with respect to the General Assembly. In addition, all of the committees prior to that bill were conducted in accordance with the OML. So doing so would maintain the status quo. If the chair determines that the open meetings law applies to the committee's meetings, then a couple considerations for you as you conduct your business with one another. First, meetings of two or more members of the committee need to be done in the open to the public. Second, if there's a majority of members meeting to discuss committee business or if the committee takes any formal action, which would incidentally require a majority, then full and timely notice of the meeting must be provided to the public. Third, minutes of any meeting of the committee where notice is given must be taken, promptly recorded, and open for public inspection. And four, the committee may convene in an executive session, but only if it has a basis under the open meetings law, which in this instance would most likely be to receive advice from your legal counsel. If that happens, it would require a two-thirds vote for you to be able to go into that executive session, and that would be four members. Quora is more straightforward. The committee records are subject to Quora, and any exceptions to Quora also apply. And one side note I should mention is that our office maintains a box account that is available to the public. So if anyone requests access to any of the documents that we have and that are subject to inspection under Quora, we actually don't make them go through the formal requests with Anastasia assisting them and providing kind of all the notice. We just give them access to that box account, and they'll be able to see any of the records that we migrate from the committee's account to the CORA account with any redactions or anything that's necessary under CORA. So with that, I think what we did last time was the committee chair made a determination about the application of the open meetings law to clarify whether it indeed applies. And then if it does, the committee acts in accordance with that.
Thank you, Director DiCecco. Yes, for consistency's sake and for transparency for the public, I agree that we need to continue with the open meeting law applying to this committee and its business. so we will do that with the records as you have laid out will be accessible to the public through the box account and I appreciate the redaction of any information that really should not be out there in the public as far as identifying information So that leaves us now with Ms Love Go ahead Oh any questions for Director DiCecco Okay Ms Love go ahead
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yelena Love, Office of Legislative Legal Services. Bless you. I'm here to give the committee a refresher of the probable cause standard that will be used at this stage of the process. Rule 49D calls the committee to determine whether probable cause exists to find that a violation may have occurred. Probable cause is a standard that's used in criminal cases, often in a preliminary hearing, to determine if charges should be dismissed or if the case should proceed to trial. And in that context, the probable cause standard requires evidence sufficient to induce a person of ordinary prudence and caution to a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crimes charged. The probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages. Just know that proof beyond a reasonable doubt or proof by a preponderance of the evidence, while maybe useful in trial, has no place in a determination based on probable cause. Though I will note that probable cause is something less than a preponderance of the evidence. And a fact is established by a preponderance of the evidence when, after consideration of all the evidence, the existence of the fact is more probable than its non-existence. So when you apply the probable cause standard to the context of a legislative ethics complaint, the question is whether the evidence would lead to a reasonable belief that an ethics violation may have been committed. So that is the probable cause standard, which I'm sure is very clear. And the memorandum goes into further detail, including case law. Thank you very much.
Any questions for Ms. Love? All right. I think we're on to our business to review the allegations and the complaint. Ms. Love?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so as Deputy Director Chase mentioned, House Rule 49 allows a person who has knowledge concerning misconduct involving legislative duties by a member of the House to bring a complaint. The complaint before the committee today alleges misconduct. It also includes examples of this misconduct as well as exhibits. I'll go over these items with the committee. There was a table that was handed out that hopefully will assist the committee in pairing the complaint, the examples in the complaint with the exhibits. And I'll just go over all of those for the committee. So overall, the complaint is that instead of maintaining the fund, the House Democrat Petty Fund, in an appropriate manner in a fiduciary capacity, that Representative Lindsay grossly mismanaged and frequently used that fund for personal use in an unethical and potentially criminal manner, with funds unaccounted for by appropriate receipts or with any other basic and fundamental fiscal measures one would expect of a person in the exercise of fiduciary duties required by such a role in office. So that is the allegation of misconduct. And then the complaint, which you have the complaint and the addendum, the complaint has specific examples of, The first example is under the title, the heading of misappropriation of campaign funds slash money laundering. The table provides more information, but I'll just summarize these allegations for you. And the allegation here is that Representative Lindsay wrote herself a check for $2,500 from the caucus fund account for the purpose of dues return. Although she had not paid dues since 2022. That is the allegation. And you have four exhibits that relate to that particular example of misconduct. Exhibit one is a check from the fund to Representative Lindsey. Exhibit two is a check to the fund from the account called Elect Mandy Lindsey. Exhibit 3 includes a tracer expenditures report that shows an expenditure from November of 2022 to the House Democratic petty cash fund in the amount of $2,500. Though we'll note on that one, it's not entirely clear where that is. There's no identifying information on that tracer printout. Now, Exhibit 4 is a check from Representative, from Mandy Lindsay to the House Dems Petty Cash Fund in the amount of $2,500, noting reimbursing slash settling with caucus account in the memo line. There's another check in Exhibit 4, but that check is not mentioned in the complaint. It's in the exhibits, but not noted or referenced in the complaint. So that's the first example of misconduct. The second example falls under the heading of misappropriation or misallocation of caucus funds. And generally, this allegation is that the caucus retreat that was held at the Golden Courtyard Marriott in November 2024, that's the basis of this complaint. So there were six debit card transactions around the time of that retreat, and those transactions were totaled $6,358.68, and those were paid to the Marriott from the House Democratic Caucus Fund bank account. The allegation there is that Representative Lindsay wrote herself a check from the fund for that same amount, $6,358.68, for the purpose of, quote, retreat reimbursement. And that check was then deposited into her personal account. With the idea being those funds, that money that was owed the Marriott was already paid with the caucus fund. And so she was not in need of reimbursement. That's the allegation. There are several exhibits on that. Under that example, Exhibit 5 are account statements from the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund dated December 2nd, 2024, showing those six transactions that I mentioned that total $6,358.68. Exhibit 6 is a check from the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund to Mandy Lindsay in the amount that same amount Again noting retreat reimbursement Exhibit 7 is a photograph that shows different staky notes with different dollar amounts and dates and some text showing the purpose of the dollar amounts. Exhibit 8 is a memo from the compliance director at the Colorado Democratic Party after doing a review of the Democratic Caucus Petty Cash Fund. And note that Exhibit 8 was updated in the addendum. So that report in Exhibit 8 was dated October 1, 2025, but then it was updated as an amendment. And that new date is December 30, 2025. And you'll find that updated memo within the complaint. And then the final example with exhibits is that she used, allegation is that she used the debit card and caucus funds for personal use. And the allegation there is that on March 24, 2025, there was a $96.17 charge to the caucus's debit card. and it posted to the account. The allegation says it was to pay for a Motel 6 in Portland, Oregon. The Exhibit 9 shows the account statement from the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund that showed the transaction in that same amount. It was from a Super 8 motel. But the complaint is that she used that money for personal use, and the complaint goes in to explain that she said that it was a mistake. And then there are two other allegations that were just mentioned at the end of the complaint but don't have exhibits. One is that she, Representative Lindsay, wrote reimbursement checks, quote, consisting of round figures from the fund to herself, and that there were prior incidents before this timeframe that is included in the complaint where there was the theft of the caucus debit card. and it was used to make $2,000 in retail charges. And again, those two complaints, those two examples of misconduct, I should say, do not come with exhibits. That's an overview of the complaint and how the complaint and the exhibits correspond. Thank you very much.
I hope the committee has had a chance to look over all of the exhibits and the complaint before this morning so that we can go ahead and dig into some of this while we have the time. My overall hope is that we could potentially complete the business of this committee before CNA-DA. I just want to put that out there right now for those of us that are spending the time serving on this committee. So knowing that, please work with all of us to schedule subsequent meetings as best we can. So I did take some time to dig into the complaint and the evidence, and I have some issues I'd love to discuss with the committee or put it up for discussion. The first one has to do with the written word of House Rule 49A, and I would appreciate input on this It does say that it defines a complaint to be and this is in quote concerning misconduct involving legislative duties by a member of the House And it goes on and then it says, and specifying the statutes, the rules, the constitutional provisions, or other ethical principles alleged to have been violated. So this particular complaint is a little different than the one we heard earlier this year where we have a complaint that's not pointing to any particular statute rule necessarily constitutional provision but may be under the ethical principles but my question for you all is this behavior that we're going to review and consider is it under legislative duties is my question. Being a member of a caucus within the General Assembly and any activities within that caucus, are they legislative duties or are they some other definition of things that we're involved with while we're here? So Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this question. I had this thought, too. I think there are a few reasons why I believe being a caucus chair fits within legislative duties. Number one, if you go to the website, the legislative website, and you click leadership, the caucus chairs of either party are listed on the General Assembly website as a part of leadership. So just in how we present that position to the public, there's an implication there of legislative duties. The second factor to me that's relevant is that you cannot be a caucus chair unless you are a member of the General Assembly. we don't we have partisan staff we have campaign staff neither partisan staff or campaign staff fill this role it's generally a legislator that fills this role and for those two primary reasons I do think that the duties and role of a caucus chair fit within legislative duties
thank you for that i hadn't actually gone to the website to see that that's a that's a fair point going along those lines and perhaps maybe you or someone else might know this is there any place where the duties of a caucus chair are written down i you know reading through the complaint. I got a lot of assumptions. And just knowing that any of us can be elected to office on a variety of qualifications or no qualifications. And same goes for, I think, caucus positions. You can run for those positions and have qualifications or not have qualifications So I'm just wondering if the duties, just like you would have a job description, are written down anywhere to be a caucus chair. Does anyone have an answer for that? Even from the Republican side your caucus do you have any This is just one of those questions I had that I love to see the job description Anybody? Representative Soper?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I gathered by everyone looking my direction, there might be a response that I should provide. We don't necessarily have strict job duties. However, it was two years ago we did adopt caucus bylaws. And within those bylaws, we did list out some of the expectations of the different leaders. And so for us, I mean, our caucus chair does have the obligation to manage the funds within the caucus bank account.
Good to know. All right. Ms. Chase?
I will just note that if anyone has information about that, it would be the caucuses themselves. We don't staff or provide any support to the caucuses. Those are political entities. So maybe some of your leadership in the Democratic caucus knows if you have bylaws that govern the procedures and rules and duties of members of the caucus and members of leadership.
Yeah, that will be one of my first questions to look for, to see if indeed we have anything written down to outline a job description.
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have a question for our staff. One thing I would like to have a little bit more research on would be on the duties and obligations of someone in a fiduciary role. Because I see our caucus accounts as being more like a club. I mean, it's essentially you have kind of a pool of money where people have paid dues into and you have someone who volunteers to manage those as a treasurer. And what are the rules in terms of those responsibilities that are listed in statute or in case law that we would have to be able to go off of? Because this is not a formal treasurer role. I mean, this is not like our state treasurer, Dave Young. a much lower level at a club-like level. And what are those obligations? Because this is not a corporate entity. This is really just a club. And so I guess I'd like just a little bit more information on what the statutes or case law would have to say.
That's similar to what I was thinking, that this is more like a club and that if there's no job description written down and no expectation for any kind of qualification, that's the question that's hanging out in my mind. Representative Mabry.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that perspective from Rep. Soper. In particular, I think we should look into what it means to be a fiduciary, and the Marshall complaint uses that term quite a bit. But I am certain there's case law, maybe even on breach of contract grounds or something like that, that digs into a separation of what a fiduciary duty is in different contexts. contexts because certainly this does not rise to the level of a fiduciary duty of somebody who is managing a company or needs to generate profits for shareholders. This is definitely a different scope of fiduciary duty. I will say, I do think that's not to say that there's no responsibility here because there are large sums of money that the caucus chairs are in charge of. And then beyond the scope of any particular duty, there are allegations here that, as the complaint says, do potentially skirt the line between is this a criminal dispute or a civil dispute, I mean, fraud can happen if you're writing checks that aren't for what you say they're for. I think we should potentially look into that area of the law as well.
Thank you, Representative Mabry. Along those same lines, I'm interested to know what the legal definition of money laundering is. I mean, I know what it is, but I'd like to know a little bit more about some of the terms that Representative Marshall used in his complaint. I had separated it out into four different things. He talked about gross mismanagement of funds. He talked about extreme negligence in handling of the fund. which could be the same. He talked about misappropriation of funds or money laundering. So he was kind of using both of those terms in one sentence and breach of fiduciary duty. So we've kind of asked for definitions of several of those things if there's a way to get us a little more information so we can further decide if the terminology he's using is fitting what we're seeing. And also for the committee's discussion with all those terms, gross mismanagement, extreme negligence, are these things considered unethical in this framework? Or are we potentially looking at incompetence? So I also want to be able to discern between unethical, purposeful, you talked about mens rea yesterday, or is it simply incompetence? I think that's a big part of what we're here to do. Representative Mabry.
Well, I'm glad my discussion on mens rea the other day stuck because that's exactly where I was going to go. The intent matters immensely here. Mismanagement and not being organized, I would say, would not, to me, violate any ethical standard if you're just bad at keeping records. I don't know that that rises to the seriousness of what we're trying to talk about here. But that not all that alleged That sort of alleged at the end as one of the allegations But the Marriott $6,358.68, that seems to be a pretty specific amount to have reimbursed yourself personally based on the allegations that we have here. And so I think digging into intent on that and the caucus dues reimbursement is important because I think those two allegations in particular go beyond not being an organized record keeper.
Representative Soper. Thank you, ma'am. And Sharon, I also would agree fully that, I mean, looking at the Portland expenditure, I guess one piece of evidence I would like to see is a copy of the front of the caucus. I assume it's a debit card, probably not a credit card. Because I'm also kind of curious to see, I mean, if it facially indicates that it belongs to the caucus or if somehow it looks like every other debit card within her possession, perhaps from the same bank that she does personal banking at. It's interesting how the amount was exactly the same for the expenses and for the hotel room. Coincidences are always hard, especially in politics. But if that was beyond a mere coincidence, I mean, this could potentially be, I mean, I hate to say the word, but this potentially could be embezzlement, which would be a very serious crime and one that I didn't hear it on the list of options. But I would like to know if we do have a finding that we believe elements exist, would we have the ability to refer this to the Denver District Attorney?
You're not going to see me answer that. That's why I'm looking at that. We can also get back to that. It could be an open-ended mislove.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative Soper. While I would say if that activity happened in Denver and Denver had jurisdiction over the activity, you could certainly refer it, but whether they move forward or not would be at the description of the DA. and also not sure that your limitations on such a crime.
Ms. Chase. Thank you. And I would further say that the authority of this committee is to make recommendations to the body. So I don't know if this committee on its own could refer such a matter. I think you would need to take it to the body and have the body vote on that. That would be my recommendation.
so i did hear that you because i know you all are trying to keep track of what we might be asking for but i did hear a question from representative soper that perhaps to see a copy of the face of the debit card so we can see what the name on that is i do know just from my own experience that often your cards are entered into Google Wallet or Apple Pay, and you have to choose. So I think that that's also... We can have any necessarily evidence of that from Representative Lindsay And I know we can ask questions and get answers to them but I just wanted to throw that out there But that a possibility that I don't know how we get the answer to that.
Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to put out there that I think I was not particularly troubled by that allegation. That sort of thing definitely happens. You can imagine somebody showing up to a hotel at 1130 at night, bumbling through their wallet. That, to me, is just completely in a different category than some of the other stuff that we were talking about. And so I didn't even feel inclined to dig into that as much because I viewed that as the second bucket that we had talked about, which was, you know, being incompetent or like making mistakes isn't necessarily our job to look into. and so I mean if we really want to dig into that one that's fine but for me I didn't even think I can't really imagine a scenario where I would think that as a standalone
would rise to the level of anything we're supposed to dig into. Representative Woodrow. Thank you Madam Chair and thanks everyone sorry I can't be there in person this morning. I take a somewhat different view of things than what I've heard from Rep Mabry. I do think that, yes, knowing an intentional conduct is worse, but negligence is still pretty bad. And we need to sort of look at this, I guess, take a step back and, yeah, one charge here or there in isolation might not mean something, but if it's a pattern, I think that's something different. And a lot of what I see here points to a potential pattern of misconduct. And even if it's just being sloppy with records, when you are basically the trustee of an account, you are a fiduciary, and that means that you have a heightened sort of duty of loyalty and care. and I think we sort of need to separate out did the bad thing happen and then based on sort of how we view the level of culpability what are our recommendations based on the commission of the bad thing right and so I wouldn't say that the bad thing didn't happen because the mindset or intent might not have been there. Breach of fiduciary duty is basically strict liability. You have a fiduciary duty. If you don't fulfill it, it doesn't matter if you meant to or not. Now, there's sort of aggravating circumstances where if you intended to embezzle money, if you intended to keep bad records and scramble an omelet, that's worse sort of on the punishment side or what we think the remedy is, but it doesn't negate the fact that the breach occurred. And so I just take a slightly different view. I think we need to look at all of this and to get to the bottom of whether there was a pattern and then make our recommendations based on that Thank you Representative Woodrow I do look at the debit charge, though, similarly to Representative Mabry, because we don't see a pattern of that happening on that particular side of things.
but Representative Woodrow, what you're saying is, you know, zoom out and kind of look at the whole picture. So I appreciate that. I do have quite a few things that I think I would like to ask for, to potentially look for, and then I want to ask the committee as well. Ms. Chase.
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask a question about Representative Soper's request, but I think maybe I can ask it when we go back over the full list of things that you all want. So I'll hold for now. Sorry about that. Okay.
In Representative Marshall's claim, on page two of his complaint, he references, he says, when confronted by the second caucus chair. So he brings in reference to Representative Joseph here. He doesn't name her, but that's who the second caucus chair is. Without her being named but her title being in there, are we allowed to ask for any and all documents that Representative Joseph may have related to this complaint going all the way back to when she was selected to be co-caucus chair, because I would like to know if she has anything, text messages, emails, written down, anything. And also, Representative Marshall says that in the complaint, Representative Joseph or the co-caucus chair can, quote, bear witness to obfuscation and delay of efforts to uncover or address these issues. So if that's the case, I would like to know if she has anything that could be shared with the committee. Also, do you want to see Representative Mamrie?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think on that point, like the bear witness piece, obviously we can't take statements, but surely there are contemporaneous emails about these things and, you know, whether it's receipts, but, you know, statements that she made to people at the time are certainly things we can consider. As long as they're written down somewhere.
To that point, Madam Chair. Yes, Ms. Chase. Thank you, Representative Mayberry. I think that we will need to do just sort of like we did in the last committee, the time frame. So anything that is dated prior to the formation of the committee. Right. And I think it was November 22nd that Representative Joseph became co-caucus chair. Was that of 2025? 24. It wasn't 22. Oh, right, 24. It was of 24, yeah. Thank you.
I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Are we legally allowed to ask for personal credit card statements from Representative Lindsay? Yes.
Is that step?
Well, the reason I'm asking is I was trying to, again, zoom out and look at that incredibly amazing fact that this amount on the debit card, $6,000 or whatever, was exactly the same amount as this other reimbursement charge. and if for some reason her own personal credit card statements added up to that number of her needing to be reimbursed for whatever it was she used her own card for. So again, I'm looking for all the pieces of information that we can possibly have, but I don't know if we are allowed to ask somebody for that. Representative Mabry has an idea.
Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I definitely think that we can ask for bank records that are relevant. And so I think it would be within the scope of our authority to say, any bank records you have that demonstrate payment of personal funds to the Marriott, during this month. I think November of 2024. So I mean, and maybe we could expand that and say like for the purposes of the retreat, because maybe there was a payment made in like September to like hold it or something like that. And so maybe we don't make it about the date. Maybe we say any payments you made out of your personal account and redacted bank statements could definitely be provided as evidence there, in my opinion.
Am I wrong there, Ms. Chase?
Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Mabry. We do have – we have done that before in another prior ethics committee in the Senate, so it's not unheard of to do that. One thing that we were planning to advise you on is not asking Representative Lindsay for anything until you receive her answer. The timing of this is a little tricky given that she has 10 days to provide an answer if she so chooses. She doesn't have to, obviously. So by talking about this on the record, maybe she shares that information in an answer if she files it. If not, we could ask for it after her deadline for filing the answer. But I also want to be conscious of the time frame for the committee to operate and conduct your preliminary investigation. But in terms of the records, if they're pertinent and relevant to allegations in the complaint, obviously she can redact or we will redact any personal information that is on or account number, anything that would jeopardize any privacy or security of her accounts, we could certainly do that. And I think we just need to fine-tune and tailor the request specifically to what the committee is trying to get to.
Director Tshako. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add to that, I think last time you made it and you paused the request and didn't take action and needed another committee meeting, And this time given that you were hoping to have the work completed by CNADA you could make the request contingent on it If it not received then we would automatically send it so that we don have to wait and have another meeting convened where you could officially request it So you make the request contingent on it not being otherwise provided.
A couple things on that. I just think with respect to, I think what you were asking may have been slightly different than what Representative Mabry had clarified, because I think what you're saying is the other expenditures that she had that weren't related to the Marriott that show up, whatever those expenses may have been, the ones that are identified on the exhibit chart, for example, and on the chart with the sticky notes, to see that in her credit card or debit card listings. And I think, yeah, absolutely, you could, in addition to the personal information, you could redact every other charge except the ones that the committee finds relevant or relate to it. So we don't necessarily know that she had a charge at King Soopers that was for her food unrelated to this. And so all those things could be reacted. And the third and final thing is to mention is, yes, the committee's made requests, but the respondent doesn't, no one has to until and unless you got to the hearing phase where you have subpoena authority, no recipient of any of your requests has to provide them to you. Thank you for that. And you're right. We were both saying something a little bit different. And I know that on the reimbursement check to herself, she did reference, I believe. Let me look at that again. You did reference that. No, let's see. Number six. It says retreat reimbursement. Yeah, so she did in the memo specifically reference the retreat. But then in all the sticky notes, it's hard to tell that that's all. Even though the date is there, it's hard to tell what those things really are.
Actually, the dates are all over the place. So that's what I'm looking for. Is there any harder evidence to back up all of these sticky notes, which is a little different than what Representative Mabry was – well, different but the same. Anyway, I – I'm describing the process. I think you were too, yeah. It could be redacted. It doesn't have to pass all of our finances. So I think, yes, this is a formal request, but we'll wait the 10 days so that it's already requested, if that makes sense.
Ms. Chase?
Well, Representative Soper is right.
Representative Soper.
I was actually pointing. Oh, sorry.
Representative Garcia Sander.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious. Not everybody loves Excel spreadsheets like some of us do. And I'm just curious if perhaps she has receipts for all of these things that she just, you know, put this as an organizational tool to lay out, you know, to make copies of receipts that may or may not be faded or not. Like maybe this is her organizational tool in lieu of a spreadsheet. So maybe we ask for receipts first.
That's a good point, too. but we wait the 10 days But that request will be ready Madam Chair Yes Ms Chase So just to be clear in addition to the bank statements
receipts as well would be the second component of that request. And then I also just want to revisit, if I could, what, if anything, if we get bank statements from her and what to redact, given that the sticky notes have, I mean, maybe there was a King Soopers purchase of food for the caucus at the retreat, and I don't know if we have any way of knowing that unless there's a receipt that says that, and then we wouldn't redact that. So I'm hesitant to, I'd like some guidance from you all about what we should or should not redact from those statements, given that it may not be clear whether or not it relates to a caucus expense or not. I think what we would be trying to do is reconcile this colorful chart of sticky notes with the total being exactly $6,358.68 to match it. I didn't actually add up all these because they don't all show up on this photo.
Well, I guess I phoned a friend or I got a lifeline here. We could also ask her to redact non-Cardus. That's exactly where I was going. Like if she has any receipts from a statement or actual paper receipts somehow that match all of these things that she has on her sticky note board, that would be very helpful. And I think that's what Representative Garcia-Sander was alluding to as well. All right. I also am – oh, yes, sorry, Representative Mabry.
I think exactly how Ms. Chase described it would be a good way of asking for it. I'll also just note Rep. Lindsay has the incentive to redact this in the proper way, just inherently. We're saying prove it. So I think whether we say redact everything that's not a caucus expense or provide the bank records that prove this, I think she has an incentive to do it either way. I also want to – I know this is something I could personally go do, but as a committee, I want to be able to look at elect Mandy Lindsay's tracer account. for any checks written to the House Dems Petty Cash Fund or HDPCF since January of 2022. I know that Representative Marshall provided us with that partly, but I want to see the whole thing to see if there's any other checks written to the fund that he didn't find. so that i know that's like i said i could do that but i think as a committee i want that as
a request madam chair could i clear yes start date of that as as i understand it
she became the chair of the caucus in november of 2022 unless i have that wrong
do you want right do you want the tracer account from january 2022 or from the time she started as
caucus chair Let me think When is a cycle 2021 It started 20 So it would be a brand new cycle election cycle
Does it start after the election? It starts in the odd.
So she was reelected in 24, but wasn't she chair before that?
Yes.
so I'm trying to because there could be an overlap where she paid into the fund and I don't want to miss that if it happened did you want to help me out here
yeah
so on this point I do think seeing if a representative to tone who is the caucus co-chair with Rep. Lindsay prior to Rep. Joseph being the caucus co-chair, if Representative Detone has any contemporaneous documents about account mismanagement, payment of caucus dues, etc. and i think thank you i think i was trying to go back a little further to whenever she became caucus co-chair like how much has she actually paid into the fund because the fund is ongoing and i i november of 22 is when is when she became caucus co-chair okay but when would she have first paid into? When was she first?
Oh, she came in on a vacancy
committee in the spring of 2021. Okay. Or maybe it was the spring of 2020. Do you see what I'm trying to get at?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How much is in the fund that
could have come from her?
So January is correct then?
January 2022?
Hang on just a second.
I'm looking it up real quick. I just... Again, because I'm a QuickBooks kind of person. It's January of 2022, sorry.
January of 2022?
Was when she came in on a vacancy. That's what I'm going for, so I was right. January of 2022. I just want to see if there's anything in the Tracer account under elect Mandy Lindsay that went into this fund ever. Also, I guess if she has any, this would be a question for her, if she has any personal evidence, like a personal check, where she has ever paid into the fund, the petty cash fund. I also want more background information.
I'll give you a chance to catch up.
more background information showing the documentation that was reviewed by the Colorado Democratic Party Will Quinn, the compliance director there what were they shown to do their preliminary review of the petty cash fund because we've gotten their answer here and how they came up with their conclusion, but I'm just curious to know what were they shown that might help us? Because we don't have that in front of us. And also what new episodes allowed them to update their review to December 30th, 2025. Obviously, some new information came in that we also don't have.
Director Chicheko.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify on the documents they've received. It also mentions in the memorandum that interviews were performed. Would you like to see if there's any interview notes that they may have? So they may have other written records of things that occurred, not necessarily just records they had received. Yes.
Let's see. They... Just trying to find that. Where did they do interviews?
It was just in the overview first paragraph. Source documentation was provided in batches, and interviews were performed. So if there was... Okay, yes.
It's related to interviews.
So, yeah, whatever those batches of documentation, yes, if they have any written record of that.
And finally, I don't know if this is a question to be asked, but I don't know if it's going to actually get us written documentation. I just am curious to know who is currently in charge of the credit card and the debit card and who has the checkbook. Again, I don't know if you can ask that and get an answer without somebody talking. And since when? Like, I think we need to know, I think it could play into what our recommendations might be at the end of this hearing. I just, I'm just, I guess I could go ask myself, but I think the committee needs to know who's in charge.
You want to say something? Okay. Yes.
Yes, okay.
Madam Chair.
Yes, Ms. Chase.
I do think that since you sent a letter to all your colleagues asking them not to talk to you about this, I wouldn't recommend that you go talk to anyone.
That's true.
However, I mean, do any members of the caucus know that answer? I don't know the answer is really why I'm asking. Does anyone else know? I think leadership took it over, but I'm not. I think that too. I think that. I don't know that it has been explicitly stated, but I think that. I just don't.
Well, we can certainly ask the co-chair if there's any information, documentation, communication related to who is managing the account. Okay. And if any transition occurred or something.
Okay. All right.
That's all of my list.
I want to see if anybody else has things to ask for. Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Rep. McCormick might have gotten this in the scope of the ask, but I just wanted to double-check because it was a thought that I had to. Any and all evidence considered by the Democratic Party in their audit, And I know you were talking the addendum, how did they get to that 370 amount. It does seem confusing I don understand how they got to where they got So anything that they have would be relevant I also think it's probably useful for us to ask leadership what information they have because they were probably, you know, it's sort of alluded to. and actually I think I've heard Rep Marshall say this that when Rep Joseph figured out something was wrong she asked a bunch of people what she should do and what was out there and what people knew and so some of that will come from Rep Joseph but I think and maybe this is evidence that we ask for upon getting stuff from Rep Joseph if there are emails that Rep Joseph has that we don't have responses to or maybe like that person then emailed somebody else. So I just want to flag there could be a web of stuff that we ask for based on what Rep. Joseph put out there that was contemporaneous.
Yeah, Ms. Chase.
Sorry, I'm so used to chairing. Thank both of you. So just to clarify, when you say leadership,
Are you referring just to the speaker and majority leader, or are you referring to any other members of leadership?
I think that we would be referring to the speaker, majority leader, and the co-caucus chairs there. So Rep. Joseph, Rep. Lindsay.
Representative Woodrow, I do see your hand. Go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it might make sense to ask who her staff was during the time period and if any are still around, if they have any documents. My understanding from the process and the caucus co-chairs is, you know, they don't go to the store themselves to buy the stuff. They usually send a staff person. Those people might have firsthand knowledge of what transpired.
So you're asking about Representative Lindsey's staff, just to be clear.
Correct. So Representative Lindsey's aide or aides during this period of time. Right.
Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, can we include AML Bacon also? I didn't hear you call out EML Bacon.
Sure.
If she has any interaction or knowledge.
Yes, Ms. Chase.
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess one thing I would like to know, just jumping kind of back to looking at the exhibit that shows all the sticky notes. we almost got there but I realized didn't quite in any sort of financial statements that she has I know we talked about receipts but it could be there's a corresponding dollar figure to each one of those in a financial statement so that certainly would be of interest and then kind of jumping back over to the conversation that we're having right now I would like to know because surely aside from Representative Marshall, there was some sort of an internal investigation done by the House Democratic leadership aside from just asking the Colorado Democratic Party to do a review of the financials And so I would like to ask for any of those documentations that they would have for us to be able to review
Thank you, Ripsoper. I think that's what we had already asked for leadership for any documentation that was around this process. we had quite an internal caucus discussion about this honestly so for the Democrats on this committee this isn't new so for the speaker, the majority leader or either of the co-caucus chairs any documentation related to this complaint is I think what we're going for. Representative Woodrow. Your hand's still up so I don't know if you still have a question. Sorry, I meant to lower my hand. Okay. Madam Chair. Ms. Chase. If I could get clarification from Representative Woodrow on his request for
seeking information from Representative Lindsay's staff. I mean, I'm not exactly sure who the aides are. We can confer with the chief clerk about who may have been assigned a, who were her assigned aides. I need to know the period. And then for purposes of the information you're asking for, is it transactions that they made at her request? using the caucus funds or like what specifically are we asking from the staff?
Representative Mabry.
I think it would be any and all documentation in your possession related to your duties in helping Rep. Lindsay with being caucus co-chair. And then I think we could have including any evidence you have of items you were asked to buy, how you purchased those, if you were reimbursed. Because some people will have their aides buy stuff and then Venmo them or reimburse them. And so any and all documentation you have on purchases purchases you were asked to make for the caucus. And then I think it might be worth asking for any and all communications you have relevant to Rep. Lindsay's duties as caucus chair. Involving financial matters, perhaps.
Yeah, involving the spending of money. Yeah. Yeah.
There's a better way to word it, but.
Thank you. Anything else from the committee at this time? for our OLS team, what would be some of this we might be able to get sooner that we not waiting 10 days for But since we probably need to look at when our next meeting could be what's a reasonable amount of time where we should look for our next meeting date? Ms. Chase.
Thank you, Madam Chair. if I could before we get to the meeting the next meeting if I could go through the list of evidence to just make sure. Oh right please do. And then also one of the things we had suggested in the timeline was that we request responses from anyone we ask for evidence within five to seven days, whatever you all direct. I mean, some of this might be readily available. If it is, you know, in terms of trying to get information before your next meeting so that you have it for your next meeting, and that might dictate when your next first meeting is based on the time we put in the requests. There's a lot here. It might have to go out on a kind of flowing basis. We might not be able to get all of it out today.
but we will take your guidance on whether you want us to request that the information be returned i mean five days would be sunday so we probably want to look at six days monday or do you want to say i don't think two days is reasonable to say by friday right i you know five days is actually i guess five five days um i do prefer to go on the shorter end of things um not to rush the process but I really want to take advantage of the fact that we're all in the building. So five days are Monday the 27th as far as the folks that aren't Representative Lindsay. Certainly, her date is the 30th. But if we get some relevant information that we can potentially discuss and act on,
at least we'll have that by Monday. Ms. Chase.
That sounds great.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So if it's okay, I'll go through the list of information, and I will ask my colleagues to chime in if I didn't get something correct, as well as obviously the committee since it's your request.
That sounds great.
So the first thing I have is requesting bylaws or a description of job duties for the caucus chairs. and I assume we would be reaching out to the caucus chairs about that or leadership. I'm not sure who we would ask.
I think leadership would be all of the above, but, yeah, leadership would be prime. The next, was there something? Representative Woodrow, were you trying to say something?
No.
Okay.
The next request, and I'm just going to assume this is the form that Representative Soper was asking, but a memo on fiduciary duties, case law and jurisprudence and common law, things like that. And there are some statutes like within the Consumer Protection Code or things like that in commercial codes if that's information that you want on that. But there's also restatement of laws and things like that that have information about fiduciary. We'll put together a memo on fiduciary.
fiduciary duties.
Director DiCecco. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought on that would also include other areas. The mundane laundering. Included in that memo, we would define the terms that you requested, Madam Chair. Money laundering, gross mismanagement, extreme negligence, misappropriation, or money laundering. I already said money laundering. Sorry. Breach of fiduciary duty.
My notes are all over. Does that sound right?
Yes. Thank you. Madam Chair.
Representative Woodrow.
Yeah, sorry. I don't know if I heard it covered. With respect to her staff, you know, I don't know if Representative Mabry included this. Any emails, text messages, communications with staff about, you know, these funds, the management of the accounts? Yes. What credit cards they should be using. Those communications,
emails should also be requested. Yes. Thank you, Representative Woodrow.
We did cover that, but you stated it in another way,
clearly. So thank you. Go ahead,
Ms. Love. Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the memo, I know that Rep. Mabry mentioned breach of contract and sort of a way of analyzing. Did you want that in the memo? Are you good? No, no. I was just throwing out that there are a lot of different ways that these disputes could come up. The next item I have on my list that was requested, Representative Soper requested
a copy of the front of the caucus debit card. Is that still something we want? Yes. Representative Woodrow, your hand's still up.
Sure.
Okay. You can keep going. Oh, Director DiShacco.
Just is that to the caucus chairs and leadership to get the front of that card? Excuse me? Who should we ask for that? Who's the recipient?
Well, that was my end question is who's in charge now, and I don't know. So ask leadership and the caucus chairs, I guess, who has.
I mean, perhaps to the extent that we have to investigate to find out who the aides were, we could investigate to find out who has the card and then make that request of that person.
Correct. Representative Mabry.
I'll just say, I hear and agree with Representative Woodrow's point on a pattern and practice of activity and therefore, you know, the hotel thing might be relevant. I, in spite of conceding that point, I still don't see how getting the front of the card matters at all, because I think what would have mattered in terms of the front of the card is, at that time, did it look like other cards in Rep. Lindsey's wallet? Right, which we won't be able to figure that out just by asking what the front of the card looks like. and I think now most cards, and I don't know, maybe this one's an outlier. Also, maybe the new card has been issued, but now most cards I feel like don't say anything on the front and everything's on the back. Anyways, and so I just don't know that that ask is that relevant. I think we can probe at what we're trying to get at without knowing what the front of the card looks like Representative Garcia Thank you Madam Chair To that point I was just curious If we going to ask for the front of the caucus card if this were me and I have three different debit cards
I request that they all look different because I have, like, when you're digging through your purse or your wallet, you're trying to find the card to quickly pay for something for caucus or something for personal use. And so if we're going to ask for the front of the card, what does that look like? Are we going to also ask for her personal? Just to clarify, was it just an honest mix-up that she pulled out the card that she thought it was? It was 1130 at night, paid for it quickly, and then realized the mistake.
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative Garcia-Sander. That's an excellent point. I think we should actually ask for the cards that she would normally carry. Obviously have the numbers redacted, but so that we see what the face of each card looks like. Because if she has, for example, all her accounts at First Bank, the caucus petty fund is also at First Bank, and she chose not to distinguish them. They're all the standard issue card with the orange square. I think that's their trademark. I'm not real sure. then you can kind of see how an honest mistake plays out. But if they're all completely different accounts and from different companies and maybe even different materials, I mean some have titanium and others just the thin plastic, I mean those can also lead to whether it was a conscious decision
to use one over the other. So I'm gathering that we might want to at least have a look at what the cards that Rep. Lindsay uses look like.
Ms. Chase. Thank you. Given that we're talking about a transaction that occurred in March of 2025, Should we be narrowing this to the cards that she knows that she had in her wallet in March of 2025? This is true because cards get updated and all my cards don't look alike. And I've almost made that mistake more than once. So I guess we can ask for that time period because that's really the relevant time period for that particular one charge. that's in question. And if they don't exist, they don't exist, but we asked. So to clarify, instead of asking the caucus chairs, we're going to ask Representative Lindsay for a copy of the front of the credit cards that she may have had in her wallet in March of 2025. And if the card is the same card that's presently being used, she may not have it, but somebody else may have it. So that may take asking.
Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make the point that, you know, what we're asking for is basically stuff that would bolster her own defense. And, you know, it's basically be exculpatory, which means, you know, prove her innocence. She should we should definitely ask for it. And she should probably be more than willing and eager to provide it. Right I mean if she you know we obviously asking for receipts and all this other stuff This is the type of thing where if you accused of mismanaging an account if you didn mismanage the account you readily bring forward as much evidence as humanly possible to show that that the case And so I just want to make the point that, yeah, we should definitely be asking for this stuff. And she should be more than willing to provide us with every credit card she's had for the last four years.
Understood. We got it. All right. I think you're still going through your list.
Yes, ma'am. The next item I have is a request to Representative Joseph for any and all documents related to fund records as well as communications, contemporaneous communications, regarding from when she became the caucus co-chair and related to the fund and allegations in the complaint. Yes, definitely related to the allegations in the complaint. And I know that as before, you all will be the gatekeeper for any information that comes in and make sure that we only get what is relevant to this particular complaint.
You can keep going.
Okay, thank you. The next is a request to Representative Lindsay regarding credit card and debit card statements, bank records demonstrating payment. I'm not sure if Representative Mabry went down this path, but I'm not sure if it's supposed to be limited to payments to the Marriott on or around November 2024 for the retreat out of her personal account. And related to that is receipts, but we'll phrase them. You know, there'll be two separate bullets, but receipts that she may have that relate to her personal expenditures for caucus expenses tied to or not to the sticky notes and not necessarily tied to the Marriott only because the sticky notes cover not just that expenditure, it appears. so records of her personal accounts related to expenditures on behalf of the caucus. Is that correct?
Yes, so it's correct in the fact that we're looking for backup information to verify the reimbursement check that she wrote to herself for $6,358.68. Any records there? but also specifically to the Marriott in particular. And again, as Rep. Woodrow said, any of that evidence would be extremely helpful in her defense that she can bring forward for us. Did I cover that all?
Yeah, I was just going to say two separate asks there. So one, receipts, bank records related to the sticky notes. to Racine's bank records related to personal money that you spent related to the Marriott trip. Right.
And asking her to, if we need to spell this out, redact anything that's not related.
Correct. Or you say she can. She can. Right. In trying to help us reconcile. Okay. next i have a request from the chair for tracer account statements for the elect mandy lindsey or related camp candidate campaign accounts for Representative Lindsay since January 2022 Yes to the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund
Right, right, sorry. Specifically, I don't need all the other. Right. And sometimes it's abbreviated.
Yes. So unless you tell us otherwise, we'll just get the tracer account statements that will include everything. Well, I think you can search by payee. Okay. So you can search by House Democratic, whatever I said. And then the name of the fund fully spelled out, but sometimes people write checks to H-C-D-P-F, whatever. And it's also House Dems, petty cash. Sometimes it's, yes. Okay.
Representative Mabry.
This is another example of something that Rep. Lindsay should just want to provide us because it would be helpful to her case. But getting at this tracer point, I think we need to add a thing to it that says, and any bank records from your campaign account that demonstrate payment was made. because I feel like that's what we're trying to get at. And, you know, maybe she didn't report it in Tracer or her Tracer is messed up. So I think bank records, and, like, I think we can word it the same way we did for the hotel, right? So it's either, you know, receipt or bank record that you have showing payment from the campaign to the petty cash funds since January 22.
Right. Is that clear?
I think so. Okay.
Director DiCecco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And is that payment not necessarily limited? It could be from her personal account as well. And just any payments? Any payments that can prove she's paid, either through her campaign account or her personal account, into the petty cash fund.
So you're right. It may not have translated.
Okay. Sorry, my notes get a little wonky here. We did have that request, any evidence of personal payments to the petty cash fund. So, okay. Next is request to Representative Titone, similar to the request to Representative Joseph, any info on the caucus fund management, Management, emails, communications, et cetera, related to the complaint or allegations of the complaint.
Yes.
And we have a series to the Democratic Party. I assume we would send this either to the chair of the party or to the gentleman who wrote the mail. We have the name. Yeah, Will Quinn. Will Quinn is his name. Okay.
I would just go to that.
documents used by the party to review the fund evidence that led to the updated memo and we will obviously phrase this any and all documents the standard language notes or written records from interviews during the audit any and all evidence considered by the Democratic Party in its audit Representative Garcia Sander has her hands raised.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It just dawned on me that Representative Lindsay has a filing agent on Tracer. Would it be helpful, because we are asking for a lot of bank statements, receipts, etc., and looking at timeline, would it also be helpful to ask the filing agent for some Tracer records?
if she has anything to clarify if things were reported or overlooked or whatever, would that be helpful?
Did you want to say something? I mean, I just feel like Rep. Lindsay would have that stuff, and she would have an incentive to provide it. I definitely see that somebody might have that, but Rep. Lindsay is trying to prove her innocence. Right. Yeah. Right, but it's a good point. But I think, you know, since Rep. Lindsay is kind of in charge, it falls on us to ask her and give her the 10 days to respond. But it's a good point.
Keep going. Thank you. Also, a request to Representative Joseph regarding who is currently managing the fund, who's in charge of the credit card, debit card, checking account, anything related to managing the fund, who has that information currently, who is doing it. We can ask her formally through a request if she's got any documentation or communications related to that. I think that we also talked about just maybe us asking her individually offline. Yes, her and House leadership, the speaker, majority leader, assistant majority leader. We have another request that is to ask leadership and the co-caucus chairs about any information or communications they have related to the fund and these allegations.
Correct. Director DiCecco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering for purposes of the committee when trying to summarize the complaint or allegations of misconduct is it enough where to capture the committee intent to simply say allegations of mismanagement of the petty cash fund Is that a summary of all the things included in the multiple pages instead of trying to go in? Or do you want specificity of all of the things included? So we have to summarize kind of what Ms. Love talked about earlier with the five allegations. What are you looking for when we make these requests on your behalf?
Representative Mabry.
I think it depends on who we're asking. So for Rep. Lindsay and the people who are more involved, definitely break it out. And be, you know, the Marriott, what do you have? The sticky notes, what do you have? I think for some of the more, like, leadership, Rep. Joseph, broader. Yep, it's fine.
That was in particular the group I was looking at. Okay, that's helpful. Okay.
The next item I have is to ask Representative Lindsay's legislative staff or aides for any documents, any and all documents in their possession related to the duties in helping Representative Lindsay as caucus co-chair, including items related to purchasing and whether or not purchases for the caucus and getting reimbursed, as well as communications related to her responsibilities regarding the fund. We will have to kind of fine-tune that, but generally speaking, asking her aides for any documentation or communications they have related to Representative Lindsay managing the fund and anything that they did related to her managing the fund. Anything they did in helping her carrying out the duties by paying for things, getting reimbursed for things, being asked to pay for things, in that financial aspect of it.
Right.
Any, let's see, Any financial statements corresponding to the sticky notes? I think we already kind of covered that by modifications to prior requests. Any documents? This would be included in a prior request to leadership, I believe, but request to leadership regarding any documents related to the review of the fund, separate from the Democratic Party review of the fund, but internal caucus review of the fund. and then we will be reaching out to the chief clerk and any House staff that can help us figure out who Representative Lindsay aides have been since she been the caucus co Yes, and I wanted to add when you were saying any internal discussions on leadership in reviewing the fund, And also any documentation they may have on guidance or requests or, I don't know how to put this, but anything they may have said in their conclusion to direct Representative Lindsay to do something about it. So if there's any documentation about admonition from leadership or any requests from leadership to Representative Lindsay in response to all of this that was months in the making, I'd like to see if there's any of that as well. Okay.
Anyone else? Committee.
Ms. Chase? That's our list.
Does anyone have any? Just a few things.
Just a few things. So we will put that request out with the due date of Monday, the 27th.
Ms. Chase?
Just to clarify that, is it five days from the date of a request? Because I'm envisioning that some of these might not get out today. If they get out tomorrow, do we get five days from tomorrow, or are we just asking for everything by Monday?
I want to just go for Monday. Again, we can't make anybody do anything, but let's shoot for Monday. Okay. And also, to clarify, we will not send the request to Representative Lindsay until we receive an answer from her, if we do, and then based on her answer we may be modifying some of those requests based on whether she provides some of the information in her answer. I think that's fair because she certainly could listen to this entire committee hearing. Well isn everyone It possible Is there anything else we need to cover today I know we can't actually set our next meeting, or could we? Tentatively? Okay. April 30th is 10 days for her response. Okay, let's tentatively do that then. Friday May 1st I know
Do you have appropriations? Well in the morning
but I know that we might potentially be able to get excused from house work like the JBC does so I'll just need or Ms. Berger will need information from all of you
if you happen to have a bill up on seconds that day so that we're in communication on when we might be able to carve out an hour and a half or so of floor work.
So let's not set a time, but the date of May 1st for our next meeting. Okay.
You want to look ahead and just kind of get a sense of potential other dates that might work for the committee in addition. That may not be, I mean, maybe that's the only meeting you need to have to conclude your investigation, but it might be helpful to just kind of block, reserve a couple of other morning time slots the following week just in case.
Yes. Does this time on Wednesdays or Thursdays work for the committee? Speak now or forever hold your peace. All right. So we would potentially have May 6th and May 7th at a 7 or 7.30 start. time, 7.30. So let's pencil those in as well. Okay. Anything else? I think that concludes our business for today. We are adjourned. Thank you.