House Committee on Ethics [Aug 13, 2026]

Representatives Garcia-Sander?

Mabry?

Woodrow?

Soper?

Madam Chair?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to adopt the stipulated facts that has been agreed to between the committee and Representative Lindsay and her attorney.

All right. That's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion on that list? Seeing none, Ms. Berger, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. Good morning, committee. My name is Jerome D. Herrera. I am here to represent Representative Lindsey. It is my pleasure to be here with you all this morning. If I could just go into a couple of preliminary matters before I begin our introductory remarks. One, at the conclusion of tomorrow's hearing, I'd like to request that we offer written closing statements rather than oral. I think we have a tight deadline tomorrow, I think, of 1 o'clock. And I think it would just help us a lot if we could offer written conclusions rather than oral conclusions. And then another thing that I would also offer would be to present proposed written findings after the conclusion. This is something that as attorneys we typically try to do or often do when there's a bench trial to make it easier for the court. But also the two sides get to say OK here what happened during the trial let us propose our written facts And then the court can go through and use those as part of its formulation of an order So those are things I'd like the committee to consider if that's possible. Then just a couple notes about the exhibits. We do have about 10 or so exhibits that we'll probably use. The main exhibit is a spreadsheet report from Mr. Quinn. I've printed that on oversized paper. I've printed seven copies of everything so that each committee member could have a copy as well as the witness. So I have those. We'll go through those as we get to them. And then in addition to that, and all of the exhibits, just for the record, come from the shared folder. So there's nothing new. It's all just stuff that you all have access to already. In addition, we have a demonstrative, which uses some of the numbers that are in the Quinn report, and we've put it together on a spreadsheet. We'd also like to use that. It's not typically considered evidence because it's a demonstrative that the lawyers put together, but we think it's helpful as an aid. So just with those notes, I just want to put that out there so that you all understand our plan as far as exhibits and the closing statement.

Thank you. Good morning. I want to first begin by, on behalf of Representative Lindsay, thanking you for the opportunity for us to come before you this morning and tomorrow to present information and evidence and make arguments. We respect your commitment to this process. We understand that this is time-consuming, and this has taken a lot of effort. And we respect that. We honor that. We thank you for that. We are cognizant of your dedication to public service. So we want to thank you for that. We understand that this type of a hearing is not something typical for legislators. You all ran for office with regard to legislation, creating laws, and this is an important task, but it's different than that. So we just want to let you know that we acknowledge that and we respect you for your commitment and effort here today. So thank you. In this hearing, as you all know, you are being asked to consider Representative Lindsay's actions as co-chair of the Democratic Caucus regarding its petty cash fund and consider whether the complaint by Representative Marshall should be dismissed or whether action should be taken against Representative Lindsay, and if so, then what recommendation to the House of Representatives is appropriate, including a reprimand, censure, or expulsion. Representative Marshall has submitted a complaint pursuant to House Rule 49. This rule provides for the submission of complaints alleging misconduct involving legislative duties. What you will hear and see over the next two days is that Representative Lindsay made a few mistakes and did not use best practices to manage the petty cash fund The mistakes she made include in December of 2024 she made a check to herself for based on a mistaken belief that a hotel was going to charge her personal card for that amount. In March of 2025, she made a check to herself for $2,500 based on a mistaken belief that she had paid her dues when she had not. And also in March of 2025, about two weeks later while traveling, she mistakenly used the caucus credit card for a hotel room for $96.07. Those mistakes are covered within the stipulated facts. Those mistakes are also explained or discussed and acknowledged by Representative Lindsay in her written response to the speaker that she provided on February 20, 2025. Representative Lindsay has acknowledged those mistakes, and she restored the petty cash fund for the $2,500 payment and the $96 charge once she learned of them. She acknowledges that those were raised by other folks, and she was not the first person to recognize those mistakes. She did not need to restore the $6,358 payment, however, because the caucus actually owed her about $7,000 in reimbursements at the time when she wrote that check on December 6th. It is an understatement to say that Representative Lindsay regrets these mistakes. But, as she will testify, none of these were intentional, and she never acted dishonestly. Regarding best practices, you will hear and see that she stepped into a position that didn't have any controls, formal processes, formal procedures, or much oversight. She did not change any of that. She never engaged in an effort to bring those best practices to the position. Instead, she simply did her best to do the job she as she understood it. a job for which she received no compensation. This was a volunteer position she agreed to do. You will hear that she followed her own informal process to manage the fund, and during the first two years, she had a good working relationship with her co-chair, and that was helpful. But during her last two years, she did not have a good working relationship with her co-chair, and that made the job more difficult. You will also see in here that she deposited her personal funds into the account on three occasions. This is in the spring of 2024. When she could see that the fund did not have sufficient funds to cover the charges that were going to hit the account, that is when she deposited her personal funds to ensure that the fund did not go negative. You will also see that she used some of her personal accounts and personal funds to pay some expenses for the caucus. She will explain the reasons for that. To give you a roadmap, our plan is to present the Speaker of the House so she can testify about her review of this matter, including using William Quinn to perform an independent review and the Speaker's, she will also discuss her conclusions about the review. We will then call Mr. Quinn to explain what his review involved and then we will ask him to walk us through his review and his findings. We will also ask Mr. Quinn to use his report to calculate how much Representative Lindsay had in reimbursable expenses and deposits into the account as of December of 2024 when she wrote the check to herself for $6,358. Our presentation of Mr. Quinn and his report is not meant to imply that his review and findings were perfect or that the fund's activities have been audited by a CPA. We present his report because it is independent, it's a full review, and it appears to us that Mr. Quinn did a good job. For the committee's purposes, we believe Mr. Quinn's report provides a sufficient and fair depiction of the financial activities of the caucus fund and of Representative Lindsay's performance as co-chair. We will then call Representative Lindsey so that she can explain how and what she did in her own terms. I also want to discuss this morning what I believe the Constitution establishes as your authority to act in this capacity where you are reviewing Representative Lindsey's actions, trying to determine what responsibilities or duties she owed, and whether her actions met or violated those responsibilities or duties. In common terms, that exercise is generally considered a judicial activity. You are gathering facts, you are trying to determine what legal standard applies, and then applying those facts to the legal standard you believe applies to determine whether the legal standard was violated. This is generally what we know or call judging. I think we can all agree that the Constitution is where the legislature and all of its committees derive their authority. And there's no dispute that the Constitution grants exclusive lawmaking powers to the legislature, and it grants exclusive judicial powers to the judiciary. The Constitution in Article 2 makes it clear that no branch shall intrude on the exclusive powers of another branch, except as expressly provided in the Constitution. Let me read the words of Article 2. The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive, and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of those departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted. Accordingly, in order for a legislative committee to be acting within the authority that the Constitution has vested in the legislature, the committee must act only within an express exception to the separation of powers clause. In other words, this committee can only act in a judicial capacity if the Constitution expressly permits that type of action. That takes us to Article 5, Section 12 of the Constitution, where the Constitution provides the express circumstances where the legislature is authorized to perform actions that are outside of its legislative powers and are instead acts of a judicial nature. Article 5, Section 12 permits each house of the legislature to make and enforce rules. Here's what Article 5, Section 12 says. all other powers necessary for the legislature of a free state. According to the Constitution those are the subjects for which the legislature and this committee can go beyond legislating and act in a capacity that is of a judicial nature In other words, the legislature can establish standards and then enforce those standards, but those rules and standards must fit within the scope of the subjects expressly stated in Article 5, Section 12. And those subjects, as stated in Article 5, Section 12, are, once again, the power to determine the rules of its proceedings. adopt rules providing punishment of its members or other persons for contempt or disorderly behavior in its presence, to enforce obedience to its process, to protect its members against violence or offers of bribes or private solicitation, with the concurrence of two-thirds to expel a member, and finally, shall have all other powers necessary for the legislature of a free state. But if you act in a judicial capacity that is beyond the scope of those expressly defined powers, then I believe you're acting in judicial capacity that is beyond what the Constitution has authorized the legislature to do. Let's talk about Rule 49 and the complaint. Rule 49 permits a representative to submit a complaint alleging misconduct of legislative duties. This committee's determination of whether a legislator engaged in misconduct of legislative duties can certainly fit within the scope of the legislature's authority to determine the rules of its proceedings and to adopt rules against contempt and disorderly behavior and to enforce obedience to its process. But the key limiting concept is that the alleged misconduct must be related to legislative duties for which the legislature can make and enforce rules. If the alleged misconduct is outside the scope of what the legislature can make and enforce rules about, then consideration of the alleged misconduct is a judicial activity that is not authorized by the Constitution. So what does this mean for the committee, in our opinion? Well, in Title 24, Article 18, the legislature has established the code of ethics and fiduciary duties that apply to state legislators. Section 2418.106 establishes the rules of conduct and potential breaches of their fiduciary duties for members of the General Assembly. This statute says, quote, Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of commission of any act enumerated in this section is proof that the member of the General Assembly committing the act has breached his fiduciary duty and the public trust. The statute then enumerates the following potential breaches of the fiduciary duties of a legislator. A member of the General Assembly shall not accept a fee, a contingent fee, or any other compensation. Sorry, let me start over again. The statute then enumerates the following potential breaches. A member of the General Assembly shall not accept a fee, a contingent fee, or any other compensation except his official compensation provided by statute for promoting or opposing the passage of legislation. and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of the General Assembly shall lobby, solicit lobbying, business, or contracts, or otherwise establish a lobbying business or practice respecting issues before the General Assembly prior to the expiration of his or her term. The requirements of this subsection 3 shall apply up through the date of the member's resignation from office. Section 2418 establishes the ethical principles applicable to the members of the General Assembly The statute says The principles in this section are intended only as guides to a member of the General Assembly in determining whether or not his conduct is ethical. It then discusses disclosure of and refraining from voting on legislation for which he or she has a personal or private interest. The statute doesn't address any other topics, just conflicts of interest related to legislation. In addition to these statutes, at one time the House had also adopted a code of ethics as part of the House rules. As I understand it, this was House Rule 48, but I believe the House rescinded that code of ethics in 1977. Accordingly, the statutes in Title 24 provide the only code of ethics and fiduciary duties the Colorado law has already established apply to a legislator. The complaint, however, does not allege violations of anything found in the code of ethics or fiduciary duties established in Title 24, nor does the complaint allege violations of any House rule. You can confirm this by reviewing your probable cause finding. that finding. The committee does not refer to any house rule or violation of the ethics code or fiduciary duties. Instead, it simply states the committee found that the probable cause exists to find that an ethics violation by you may have occurred, but there's no reference to any specific house rule or any provision in Title 24, Section 12. Instead, the complaint alleges violations of Colorado laws that are generally applicable to any person and that are not covered within the permissible topics for which the legislature can act in a judicial capacity. In other words, the rules governing its proceedings, rules against contempt, disorderly conduct in its presence, enforcement of obedience to its process, and protecting its members against violence, bribery, or solicitation. In this case, it just happens to be that the person accused of violations is a state representative, and it is alleged that she violated obligation or duties to a group of legislators as part of her role in the legislature as a caucus co-chair. But the complaint alleges that she violated generally applicable laws, not the House rules or the code of ethics or fiduciary duties applicable to legislators. And more importantly, the complaint alleges that she violated laws or legal standards that are outside the scope of the powers granted the legislature in Article 5, Section 12. This means in order to judge whether her alleged misconduct constitutes a violation of the legal standards raised in the complaint, you need to go beyond the ethical code and fiduciary duties established in Title 24 and beyond the House rules, and you would need to look to what generally applicable Colorado law establishes as potentially applicable legal standards and then apply the facts to that applicable legal standard. The complaint alleges misappropriation of campaign funds, money laundering, misappropriation, misallocation of caucus funds, personal use of debit card caucus funds, and the complaint alleges that Representative Lindsay was a fiduciary to the caucus, she violated fiduciary duties, and she was negligent for mismanaging the caucus funds. Those are all generally applicable legal standards under Colorado law. None of those are addressed in Title 24 or the House Rules Because the complaint alleges that Representative Lindsay violated generally applicable laws that are outside the scope of the topics the Constitution says the legislature can make and enforce rules about, the committee, I believe, must decline to act in a judicial capacity on those legal standards alleged in the complaint. For example, determining whether Representative Lindsay was a fiduciary to the caucus, That requires judicial action that is a power that is exclusively reserved to the judiciary. A court would need to determine whether she was a fiduciary to the caucus under Colorado law. The court would need to decide what duties were inherent or part of that fiduciary relationship and whether Representative Lindsay violated those duties and whether the caucus suffered any damages through a violation. It is a similar outcome with money laundering, misuse of funds, and negligence. Those are generally applicable legal standards outside the scope of the topics for which the House can adopt and enforce rules. And those determinations must be left to the judicial branch. But let me conclude this way. We aren't saying Representative Lindsay didn't have obligations and duties to the caucus. She ran for and was selected by her peers for a position that had responsibilities and duties. We do not deny that. But our point is that this committee has limited authority to engage in judicial action to review her responsibilities and her actions. And to the extent the complaint asks you to make determinations and apply generally applicable legal standards under Colorado law that cover subjects beyond what Article 5, Section 12 authorizes, we believe the committee should decline to act on those legal claims because the legislature does not have authority to engage in that type of judicial activity. Instead, we believe it would be proper if this is what the committee determines. the committee would decide whether the conduct was a misconduct of Representative Lindsay's legislative duties within those proper subjects for which the legislature can act in a judicial capacity. Those topics are the legislative process, your proceedings, your process, those things that are established in Article 5, Section 12 of the Constitution. So with that, that would be the conclusion of our opening remarks.

Yes, that's right. But we do believe that the committee, as part of the legislature, has a limit on what it can do as far as its findings and the conclusions that it could make. And we do believe that there is a proper subjects and findings that the committee can do in reviewing this complaint about misconduct of legislative duties. But as we see it, and I regret that I wasn't part of the earlier discussions, but as we see it, this committee and the legislature has a limit on the subjects for which it can engage in what is otherwise considered judicial activity, where you're gathering facts, applying facts to a standard, whether it is a House rule or whether it is the code of ethics that the legislature has adopted for legislation. When you're applying facts to those standards and then making a determination that a standard was violated based on that facts, that's a judicial activity. That's not the legislature enacting laws. and our reference to the constitution is because we you know you all are a legislative body with expressed powers and also limits right your your authority as a legislature and as a committee all derived from the constitution and the constitution says the legislature can engage in certain non-legislative duties act as a judicial body but with regard to these subjects so to the extent that the committee believes that there's misconduct, that Representative Lindsay's actions constituted misconduct in her legislative duties as it relates to the proceedings in the House chamber or in the process or its rules, then that is within the scope of this committee, yes. But when the committee is going to look or is asked to say, to make a determination, does Ms. Lindsey's conduct violate Colorado law on fiduciary duties? We believe that's beyond what the Constitution has authorized the legislature to do, because that involves considering generally applicable Colorado law on fiduciaries. You would have to look and you'd have to say, what is the law? What is a fiduciary under Colorado law? Because you would have to make that determination because the fiduciary duties that are established in Title 24 don't address this type of action or conduct. And so our belief is that when you go outside of looking at the legislative process, whether it's a violation of legislative duties as they relate to the legislative process, and instead whether she violated Colorado law as far as money laundering, misuse of funds, misappropriation of funds, or fiduciary duty. That's, in our opinion, judicial action not authorized by the Constitution.

Mr. DeHarrera? Yes, I think that's a good question and goes right to the point. Yes, the legislature can make and enforce rules, but I think those rules have to relate to the subjects that are expressly laid out in Article 5, Section 12 of the Constitution, which means the rules have to relate to the legislative proceedings. And here, you know, there's no doubt that she was a caucus co-chair that relates to legislative proceedings. But if the House were to adopt rules on topics outside of what is happening in the House, right, if it's not related to your proceedings, your process, then I don't think it has that authority. Representative Mabry.

Mr. DeHirrera? Yes, as I just said, to the extent it is you're considering misconduct of legislative duties. Yes.

I think the ethical principles also have to relate. Like House Rule 49 talks about how a complaint can include references to statutes, references to the Constitution, and references to other ethical principles. And that's what the rule invites as part of a complaint. And Representative Marshall included those things. Yes, you can consider those things. But where I think it goes too far is if the committee were to say under Colorado law, this is what a fiduciary is. Under Colorado law, in this fiduciary relationship, these are the duties that are involved in that relationship. When you're making a declaration as far as what Colorado law says as to a fiduciary duty or as to money laundering, then I think you're outside of the legislative arena where you can make an enforceable.

Are you saying that that cannot include ethical principles related to a fiduciary duty I saying you can consider those sources as sources of information but what I don't believe the Constitution allows you to do is make a conclusion about Colorado law that would say, under Colorado law, that is a fiduciary relationship based on Colorado law.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions for Mr. DeHarrera. Article 5, Section 12 refers to the authority of the House to determine rules of its proceeding and adopt rules, providing punishment of its members or disorderly behavior in its presence. Is it your contention that if proven, if the allegations were proven of mismanagement of caucus funds, that that falls outside of disorderly behavior in the presence of the House?

Go ahead, Representative Woodrow.

If you could read that to me again.

Thank you for that question. I think it's consistent. In that opinion, they're talking about the remedy of expulsion, which it's clear that the legislature has the right to carry out that remedy with two-thirds, right? I think that's what it says in the Constitution.

It not limited to expulsion Correct And I agree You have the inherent power to discipline your members which would include the right of expulsion for issues or for conduct related to legislative duties that impact the legislative process, the legislative proceedings. And you can make your determinations and the remedies of expulsion censure that are laid out in Rule 49 based on conduct that relates to the legislative duties and relates to the process and proceedings of the legislature. That's different than making a conclusion that a person violated a generally applicable law or generally applicable legal standard such as fiduciary duties or money laundering. Those are generally applicable legal standards that are outside the scope or to make that conclusion is reaching beyond the scope of legislative duties. Yes.

So to clarify, if something is a breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of fiduciary duty is obviously a law that applies generally to Coloradans, is it your contention that simply because fiduciary duties may apply outside of the legislature that it can't be conduct or strike that misconduct involving legislative duties? I would say it this way. I would respond by saying this. Currently, as exists in Title 24, the legislature has established the fiduciary duties of a legislator. That was established whenever those sections in Title 24 were adopted. So those are the established fiduciary duties of a legislator. So you could look to see, did her actions violate those fiduciary duties? Those have not been in play. So you can't look to say there's established fiduciary duties of a legislature that she violated. So to determine whether she violated potentially other types of duties, or she had some other fiduciary relationship other than what has already been established under Colorado law, you would need to look at Colorado law. And you'd have to say Colorado law, and this is what you received a memo from legislative legal staff that says Colorado law goes through these. It's the Moses case. That's the main case that says it's a factual inquiry to determine whether someone's a fiduciary. So you would have to apply Colorado law, generally applicable Colorado law, to these facts to make the conclusion that Representative Lindsay was a fiduciary to the caucus. And then you would have to apply the facts to say she violated those duties, and then you would have to apply the whole legal context, I believe, which would also include... whether or not there was any damage by those breaches. And that is going outside of, obviously, the House rules, the established ethics code, and the established fiduciary duties. But you could look at that activity. You could look at that conduct and say, does that conduct violate the ethical norms that relate to our proceedings? And you could say, it does or it does not. But you could do that without making the conclusion under Colorado law that she's a fiduciary, she breached fiduciary duties, and she caused damage. I hope that answers the question.

are you reading the fiduciary duties of a legislator to be restricted solely to that statute? Those are the only fiduciary duties established under Colorado law by the legislature. The legislature has adopted that section in Article 24 to say these are the fiduciaries of a legislator. However, beyond that, a legislator engages in actions that could constitute fiduciary relationships, could violate fiduciary relationships, just like a legislator could speed and violate speeding laws. But those things are determinable or have to be determined in the judicial context, not in the legislative context. What the legislature, according to the Constitution, has limited judicial authority to act, which is related to those topics. The proceedings here in the Capitol that relate to legislative duties. So it is possible that that was a fiduciary relationship, but in order to adjudicate that, I think that's left to the judicial branch, not the legislature to say under Colorado law, she was a fiduciary. Under Colorado law, these were her fiduciary duties. Under Colorado law, she violated those or didn't violate those.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. DeHerrera, I'm still tracking and following along with your argument, and so I do want to ask some parallel questions to make sure that we're understanding this. So you're saying that the General Assembly cannot police or judge a matter that would be a generally accepted legal standard outside of what has been narrowly tailored within the Constitution or further refined by Title 24. Let me ask, would the General Assembly have the power to police a member that engaged in sexual misconduct outside of the halls of the legislature? Because that is a generally accepted legal standard to not engage in sexual misconduct.

Go ahead, Rep. Sofer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. de Herrera. You know, to parse this out just a little bit further, so you're saying that if someone engages in sexual misconduct outside of the halls of the General Assembly, but it impacts the work of the General Assembly, then the General Assembly could police and judge that impact, but not necessarily the underlying offense itself.

Go ahead. Then, Mr. DeHirard, I'm sensing, I guess, a slight shift in your argument there. So going back to sexual misconduct, because I want to have an analogy that's parallel, that's outside of the fiduciary aspect. So if we were to apply your same theory to sexual misconduct, we wouldn't be interpreting whether sexual misconduct did or didn't happen in accordance with a definition written in statutes. we would just judge how the impacts of a member's sexual misconduct or alleged sexual misconduct impacted the operations of the General Assembly.

Okay. Yes, Representative Mabry.

Yes, I believe that is correct. And that's how the rule is established, as I sort of see it. The first part of the rule says anyone with information that there may be misconduct of legislative duties can submit a complaint. And then later on in the rule, it says the complaint can include reference to statutes, the Constitution, or other ethical violations or ethical principles, I believe is the word.

Restate your question. I think I understood, but if you wouldn't mind restating it.

Yes, that sounds like legislative work to me.

All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you for that follow-up committee and Mr. DeHerrera. We will go ahead and call forward our first witness on the list, which is Speaker McCluskey. I believe she is ready, and we're going to call her into the room. I will, as with each witness coming forward, I will ask them to answer an oath and also remind them about the prohibited communications. just so you all know I'll be saying that in front of every witness just so that they're clear. Just going to give her a moment to get into the room and get settled. Welcome, speaker. Go ahead and if you need a few moments to get ready, that's fine.

So when you're ready, with each witness, I am going to ask you to swear to an oath. And you can just sit there. You don't need to raise your hand, but you can if you want to, just to ask you this question with a yes or no answer. um speaker mccluskey do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do yes thank you for that and also as a reminder that um witnesses coming before this committee have been routinely asked as well as the entire house of representative to not speak to any members of the Ethics Committee or to any other witnesses about this matter until we have the chance to conclude our business. So with that, you were on Representative Lindsay and Mr. DeHarrera's witness list, so we will turn the mic over to them to proceed with questions, and then we may do some follow-up as well. Go ahead, Mr. DeHarrera.

Good morning. It's nice to meet you.

Thank you.

here in the House. I am the, sorry, Madam Chair, do I need to be recognized?

Thank you. I am Julie McCluskey. I am the state representative for House District 13, and I serve as Speaker of the House.

I was elected by the caucus in November of 2022.

I do not hold a job currently outside of my time here. I worked in public schools prior to assuming this role. have worked in the private sector, in hospitality, had other jobs along the way.

Yes. I attended Colorado State University.

Chemistry and biochemistry.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Breonna Tatone.

In 2022, the former speaker had developed, I'll call them rules. They're not in front of me. They may have been called guidelines for how the caucus was to elect members to serve in leadership roles. Those rules were adopted by the caucus, and then each of the positions of leadership were independently elected by members of the caucus.

I don't believe, I don't have the rules in front of me, I don't recall whether or not they addressed the specific duties of each of our positions. As a member was nominated and then spoke to the caucus as I recall each nominated member would describe their ambitions why they believed they were the best person for the job described their goals for the position

My understanding at that time was based on what I had seen in the caucus over the previous four years. So, yes, I had seen Representatives Froelich and Cutter oversee those responsibilities. And in my first two years in the House, Representatives Houghton and Michelson-Jeney oversaw. They fulfilled those two roles.

Yes. The caucus co-chairs were responsible for caucus functions, for meetings that included weekly meetings, a breakfast and then a separate lunch. The caucus meets during the interim or on other occasions as needed. The caucus chairs facilitate those meetings. The caucus chairs oversee and have responsibility for collecting dues from members and administering the House Stems Petty Cash Fund. And I think over that time, I certainly in the years as speaker came to realize that our caucus co-chairs also facilitated gift giving. Caucus dues were used to provide gifts if a member had a death in the family or there was a wedding to celebrate or some other occasion. and the caucus co-chairs were generally responsible for facilitating and orchestrating any of the caucus responsibilities. Those were not responsibilities of the speaker or the majority leader.

Not that I'm aware of.

We do not.

At that time, I was not aware of any training or written procedures for the position or a job description. I do want to note that since April of 2025, I did have conversations with past caucus co-chairs asking if those materials were available. representative frolic informed me there were not any written procedures for the petty cash fund then senator michelson janet said during her time as caucus co there were not any written rules I did proceed to ask both of them about their handling of the fund They informed me they managed the petty cash fund by handling expenditures, collecting receipts. reconciling the count. I believe Senator Michelson-Janae offered that she certainly may have missed a receipt or two along the way, but generally that was the practice. I asked both of those caucus co-chairs about the collection of member dues. I remember specifically Representative Froelich telling me that she had to be very diligent I don't believe that was her word I think she either said nagged or badgered members to pay dues when they failed to but she understood it was her responsibility to ensure that dues were paid

And so that's where the operating budget is for these caucus activities.

It's the Democratic caucus.

Correct.

Is that right?

And the dues are $2,500?

Yes. I do not recall. I believe the caucus co-chairs informed members that that was the amount. I don't recall what the amount may have been in years prior. It was a caucus co-chair responsibility to establish what was needed for members to pay in dues. But since November 2022, it's been $2,500.

Yes.

Yes.

Many pay their dues at a certain time and others pay it later. And there's various reasons for those things.

I believe in my time in office, both prior to my election as speaker and currently, there has been an understanding that members may use campaign funds, which are donations they have received during their campaign to pay their dues. because members may fully exhaust their campaign funds during their campaign. Once elected, it is my understanding the caucus co-chairs have provided a window of grace, a window of time for those dues to be paid, given that a member may not have those funds readily available.

And I want to set up two different time periods, right?

As was custom in practice, prior to me becoming a speaker, I observed how the leadership team engaged. I believe our engagement when I became speaker looked similar to that. Our caucus co-chairs continued to facilitate meetings, oversee the account. it proceeded until April of 25 as I had witnessed their role their responsibilities, their duties proceeded as I had witnessed them being fulfilled during my first four years in office the caucus co-chairs ran caucus meetings I do not supervise those positions we are all independently elected by the caucus each of us having a role we were fulfilling those roles up until April of 25

No

No reports in the 2022 November retreat that was held at the Gaylord Hotel. That was one time when I remember our leadership team having a dinner. And at one point, I remember I had suggested to our caucus co-chairs establishing a policy around the collection of dues because it had been made apparent to me that not all members were paying dues. That had been a suggestion I made at the time.

for more information about the petty cash fund? Not to my knowledge. There had, custom and practice, there had not been any sort of reports or provided information at our caucus meetings. I don't believe anyone had concerns or raised any concerns prior to April 2025.

Is that correct regarding the petty cash fund?

Representative Joseph brought to my attention concerns about several of the transactions that had occurred in the account.

I believe it's on April 5th. I believe the committee is aware of that, and it's included within our stipulated facts.

I am not aware of any concerns about the balance of the account.

That is correct.

That is correct.

I want to be clear in my response. There may have been a request from Rep. Joseph about gaining access to the account that she had directed toward me, and I believe I had sent her to Representative Lindsay. But I don't recall – there were no specific questions about the management of the fund other than maybe that request about what Representative Joseph should do in order to participate in the management of the fund, if that makes sense.

I want to emphasize that the Speaker of the House does not supervise. I do not hire or appoint these positions. They are elected by the caucus. Nothing was brought to my attention. There were not concerns about the management of the account. I had no reason to believe there were issues with the management of the account. I did not personally request an updated reconciliation to the best of my knowledge. I don't know that any member of the caucus requested that.

Again, we are each held accountable by the caucus for the performance of our duties. I started as speaker without a job description or a manual from my caucus. I shared a vision for what I believed the role of the speaker to be, and I have done my best to execute in that fashion. I do not have a caucus supervisor. I am accountable to my caucus. I would describe each of the leadership positions in the same manner. We are accountable to the members of the caucus for the performance of the duties or expectations that they have of the job.

None of the caucus leadership positions receive compensation.

And that would be excluding what a typical legislator receives.

But do they receive anything additional to perform the responsibilities of a co-chair? No. I believe in November of 2022, there may have been discussion about providing some additional aid hours if they appeared to be necessary for the fulfillment of setting up lunches or breakfasts, the meal work. I'm not sure that's the right description. To the best of my knowledge, we did not move forward with a plan to add any hours beyond what a member receives with their legislative aid.

The caucus co-chairs would probably be the best ones to answer that. I think for any of us, there are manual tasks I take on in my job. I would assume the caucus co-chairs would have similar things. Could staff do some of those responsibilities potentially? but I think the caucus co-chairs could probably answer that best.

Since April of 2025, I have certainly contemplated the role of a caucus treasurer, shared that idea with our caucus at one point. In my conversations with Mr Quinn he had suggestions for how we might organize the account I believe the director of CDP, Karen Asensio, also had shared some ideas of how we might organize the account. But prior to April of 2025, it had not come up for discussion.

Certainly at the retreat in November of 2025. I don't have the slides in front of me. I believe those have been provided. But we presented slides to our caucus, and I think through that conversation discussed if there was an alternative staffing structure for the caucus that would better serve our needs.

Yes.

I want to, I am familiar with the slides. I want to point out that the slides with a white background, these are not numbered by pages or slide numbers, but the last white background slide reconciliation recommendations, that was the last slide presented at the November retreat. the slides that are shaded in the background were presented to our caucus

Okay, say that again.

Yes, correct.

Yes.

Correct.

Were presented in November.

Correct.

Right, that's the retreat.

tell us about

I want to be very clear. There were numerous meetings following the April 5th email from Representative Joseph. throughout the process of our work to understand and ultimately reconcile the account. Countless hours spent trying to resolve the expenditures, the revenues received, the expenditures, the source of both revenues and expenditures. Following the April 5th email, in the next two to three weeks, there were several meetings, discussions, as I recall, with both Representative Joseph and Representative Lindsay. Most notable was a presentation from Representative Lindsay that illustrated expenses for different events, the sticky note presentation. Concluding the presentation, I requested the checkbooks and cards from Representative Lindsay so that I would have those and they were not in her possession until we could reconcile the outstanding questions that existed regarding expenditures in the account. There was the, at that time, Representative Lindsay produced a notebook. There may have been other documents. We contacted, I contacted the Colorado Democratic Party to see if we could get assistance in reconciling this account with financial staff that work for CDP. The hope being that having someone with financial background or expertise in this area, that they would be able to help us reconcile an account that had not been reconciled over, as far as I could tell, back to the time of November 2022 when I became Speaker. It took a period of time, two or three weeks in May, in order for Mr. Quinn at the Colorado Democratic Party to gain access to the account to be able to conduct that reconciliation. I believe that delay was due in part to vacations or miscommunication. But the reconciliation began just prior to our June caucus debrief. Mr. Quinn informed me he did not have all of the information he needed in order to reconcile the account. At the June debrief, I presented to the caucus what I understood up until that point had occurred and informed the caucus that the reconciliation was still incomplete because we were missing receipts. I spoke to Representative Lindsay that day with a heightened urgency that we needed the missing receipts, particularly those around the hotel expenditures, the $6,358 check. up until that point it had been my interpretation of what representative lindsey had said that her credit card had been charged that amount for the retreat i think since that time i have understood both in her verbal statements to me as well as in her response that she believed her credit card was going to be charged, not that it actually had. But at the June debrief, I had been clear we needed to see evidence of that because this was still an outstanding charge, and it was two months since it had originally been presented from Representative Joseph. Over the next two months, I continued to ask for those receipts. I did not receive communication from Representative Lindsay explaining the delay. I was told following the July 4th weekend I would have the receipts. Once the holiday was over, I did not receive them. At the end of July, she informed me that I would have them after that weekend, July 28th, I believe. I did not have those receipts. On August 14th, I saw Representative Lindsay here at the Capitol and demanded that we get the receipts immediately. I followed that up on August 15th with an email to her outlining my concerns about this delay in the reconciliation. And it was within, I don't have the exact date, within a two-week period, two or three-week period, that those receipts were provided. Those were then sent to Mr. Quinn, and the reconciliation occurred over the course of that time frame, along with additional conversations with Representative Lindsay, members of leadership, which ultimately led us to the November retreat conversation with the entire caucus. goal being and certainly I had anticipated we would have been able to reconcile this account before the June debrief with our caucus that did not occur but we were able to have that conversation with the caucus regarding the reconciliation of the count in November okay thank you

I think she provided it through a binder of receipts.

the initial conversations focused on what Representative Joseph had initially raised in the April 5th email. And then it was upon further conversation and realization that the account had not been reconciled, certainly the check for $2,500 that was written to restore the $2,500 check that had been cashed by Representative Lindsay, I believe, in March. That occurred after we had these conversations. I believe the reimbursement of the hotel, the $2,500, dollars. Those were completed at the April 21st meeting. I believe the checks are dated then.

So I can make representations that, yes, there is your email from April 15th to Representative Lindsay where you express these concerns. There's an email from you to Representative Lindsay and Representative Joseph on May 13th where you announced that you were establishing a new checking account. and Mr. Quinn was going to be doing a review, so that's like May 13th. And then there are those emails, the email in August 15th, where you express some concerns about not receiving some of the documentation you had requested, and that is an email that's in our stipulated facts. It's an email in our record. I have it here. And I can present them to you so you can have those, but I don't know that the committee needs us to walk through them all because it's in the record, the details, so we can see all that. The one thing that I would add, and it's in the record, an email on August 19th where Representative Lindsay provided that additional documentation that had not been provided by August 15th.

I don't think you.

Yes.

At the time Mr Quinn was reviewing our setup he believed that a new account would be necessary because as I recall he thought these were campaign funds that they were direct donations or that this account needed to comply with campaign finance law We determined that since it was a petty cash fund with contributions, dues paid by members, that the establishment of a brand new account was not necessary. And since I had in my possession the checkbooks, the credit card, we did not establish a brand new account at that time.

I can describe the relationship between the two as unproductive, seemed to lack a collaborative approach in doing the work. They had had a significant conflict at the retreat in November of 24. The majority leader and I facilitated a conversation between the two of them in hopes of both resolving that conflict and moving forward with agreements and how the two might work together. but I was generally aware that the two of them did not work well together.

I don't know if I understand the question exactly. I guess I don't know what you mean by role.

I believe that what, after our review and reconciliation of the account, I believe that what Representative Joseph brought forward were fair and legitimate concerns that were not immediately explainable by what she saw in the account. During our review, I recall that Representative Joseph secured a card and maybe access to the account in February. Representative Joseph did refuse to take on any responsibilities with the account until it was fully reconciled. I believe that came out of her concerns about the funds and how the funds had been handled. Certainly that may also have been attributable to her relationship with Representative Lindsay.

I think after the April meetings, we, myself, and the majority leader discussed next steps. We believed the account needed to be fully reconciled. I had a conversation with Shad Mureeb, who's the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party at that time. I don't know if he offered or if I requested, but they had the expertise to help us reconcile the account. We certainly contemplated an accounting firm or CPA to help us with that. We were concerned about cost. We knew we would have to pay any third party that we hired. The Colorado Democratic Party was willing to provide this reconciliation service to us at no cost, which was a significant consideration for us. And we believe that, I believe Mr. Quinn is in charge of their compliance, so it was not just a financial review, but also ensuring that if there was any concerns about the use of campaign funds, that the compliance director could also review that.

I certainly asked for assistance reconciling the account back to November of 2022, looking at expenditures from the account and the receipts for those expenditures. I asked for recommendations on how the caucus might improve our accounting process, suggestions for how the caucus manage a petty cash fund, how we might better structure our responsibilities around these dues. there were numerous conversations certainly you know my expectations a petty cash fund like anyone's personal bank account or as an elected official we all have the responsibilities to manage a campaign finance account that you know the account be balanced monthly that expenses be accounted for that receipts be maintained since none of those basic duties, tasks of managing the account had been maintained. Certainly our first priority was ensuring that we had accounted for all the expenditures from the account. So that was certainly... The top priority, I communicated to Mr. Quinn, and then we welcomed his advice or counsel on next steps.

No.

I delivered the receipts to him that we had received from Representative Lindsay. Given the concerns that had been raised, I informed Mr. Quinn that I would be the point of contact if he had any questions, if anything came up. Certainly to address those to me, not to Representative Lindsay or Representative Joseph.

I don't know that I was that direct, but I definitely told him I was the point of contact for the reconciliation.

Yes, I had confidence that we would be able to reconcile the account.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I think that would be a question for Mr. Quinn. I mean, I believed that what I was receiving was an accurate reconciliation of the account and his recommendations.

Well, he was certainly saying that from June until the August 19th. During that time frame, he did not have the information he needed to fully reconcile the account. I do know that as we were going through, you will see that there is an updated memo. There was a preliminary memo that indicated a certain amount, $1,300 that had been owed to Representative Lindsay, but that included a double counting of the $925. I think I had caught that. I had asked Mr. Quinn about it. He acknowledged it had been counted twice, and then we updated. He updated the memo and sent it back to me with the correct amount that was due to Representative Lindsay And that would be the final review final memo that he did after you and he did that adjustment for the 925

Good questions for Mr. Quinn. I do think he still had, like there were some expenditures he did not make notes for in the spreadsheet, their purpose being unknown to him. So I think he did clarify that. There may have been some additional questions that he had. We held a meeting in October that included Representative Lindsay where we went through expenditures to ensure that his understanding was accurate. There was back and forth at that time to clarify any of the unknown – They may have been to merchants where the receipt was unclear what the use of those funds had been for.

Yes.

Yes. I spent a great deal of time reviewing receipts, expenditures, trying to make sure that I understood where the money had been spent. at the point that the reconciliation was completed. We had had the meetings and conversations. I think my bottom line was that the account had been, there was Representative Lindsay had not been organized. it it was incredibly unfortunate that we didn't have the receipts right away and the lack of communication may have been a bigger challenge through all of this not to have received timely communication or explanations why those receipts were delayed at the point that Mr. Quinn provides the reconciliation and we have gone through all of these receipts I have offered multiple times to the caucus that they are welcome to come see all of this documentation his reconciliation the spreadsheet these receipts for anyone who had questions or still had concerns I believe the account was very poorly managed. I did not find, I think we answered any of the outstanding questions about expenditures. and with maybe the exception, I don't know if this is an appropriate time to bring this up, but the $6,358 check, I still find irregularities in the actual check that was dated November 15th, what I was originally told by Representative Lindsay that she believed her credit card had been charged and her response in writing to the complaint where she says she wrote herself a check several weeks later after receiving emails from the hotel. I was not made aware of those emails. I had requested a receipt from the hotel in the amount of what they had charged to verify that her credit card had not been charged and that the caucus account had been charged, which it was over the course of two or three days after the actual retreat. I will offer to all of you that the date December 6th in your stipulated facts is not accurate based on the records I have seen. The check is dated November 15th, and it was deposited against the account December 4th. So I'm still unclear about that transaction, although based on the receipts that have been provided by Representative Lindsay, her use of personal funds since the fall of 22, during the session of 23, and in the spring of 24, without anyone's knowledge, that I do believe she was owed money in roughly the amount of $7,000.

I would think I probably have 30 to 45 more minutes, and I can keep it shorter if the committee needs.

Sure. I will try to keep it short.

I'm okay going.

Yes.

This is the spreadsheet that Mr. Quinn created to account for all of the deposits and expenditures from the House Dems Petty Cash Fund.

Yes.

That is correct.

I believe so. The second page shows the $370.34 that would be due to Representative Lindsay, which I believe is the right amount.

Yes. I believe all the tabs have been printed, but everything looks familiar here.

The top page, I believe, would have been the tab that documents those checks that were written to Representative Lindsay and then those checks that were written from Representative Lindsay to the account. So both what she paid either herself or were paid to her if they were signed by another caucus co-chair and then what she put into the account.

Received from her. Right. Received from her into the account. Yes, correct.

Correct.

This breaks out over the course of the four years, checks that were paid to Representative Lindsay, checks received from Representative Lindsay, and the difference. This is where we reconciled the amount that was owed to Representative Lindsay based on the use of her personal funds. So the top part of this page is broken down by year. 2025 checks paid to then checks paid received checks received from and then a difference and you do that break it down by year 2025 2024 2023 and then you get a total of those differences which is that number 6482.66 correct okay then now that top part doesn't include

I because if you look at

Sorry, the 6853, I believe, this may be a question for Mr. Quinn, would have been the receipts that Representative Lindsay had produced.

Correct.

Yes.

At the top it says, Receipts on Hand Reconciled.

Yes.

Yes.

It's sort of the same chart, it appears. On the left-hand column, it says Amazon or whoever the vendor was. Then there's a column about date, column about amount, and so on and so forth. You see that? Yes.

I believe this is the collection of personal expenses that Representative Lindsay had on behalf of the caucus over the period of time from when she was elected in November of 22 until she stopped using personal funds.

Everything in this document was originally loaded by Mr. Quinn, yes. We may have had discussions and added notations. He may have done that. As we were talking, we may have typed in, but it was a shared spreadsheet that we were all looking at at the same time.

Yes, and what we ultimately sent in August as well. So the initial receipts and then the August 19th receipts. This is all based on documentation he reviewed. He sees documentation. He puts it in. That's right. That's what you understand.

And then at the top right on what would be page 17, it says total reimbursable expenses, 778.48 minus 92500. And then it gets to a number, 685348.

That is the correction of the 925 that I believe was counted twice. And that was the final adjustment that was made is you and Mr. Quinn agreed that the 925 was somewhere else, so it should be pulled out of the reimbursement chart. And that's how you get to how Mr. Quinn got to 6853.48 as the reimbursable number. Yes.

is subtracting the, or taking the difference of paid to Lindsay, to Rep. Lindsay, which is the 6482, from reimbursables owed to Rep. Lindsay 6853.

And that gets us the difference of 370.34. That is my understanding.

The amount due Rep. Lindsay. After all this review was performed by Mr. Quinn.

Is that right?

And it looks like this just shows all the activity, the deposits, the credits into the account, as well as the debits out of the account. It appears that all of the tabs have been printed here. There was one for each year that would have included all the expenditures and deposits.

Yes.

Do you see that?

I believe that is all correct.

so okay so if you continue past okay there's the two pages that are the 2025 activities

Is that right?

Up until December, I believe so.

and it gets to a total $3.773.

Without seeing the tabs, I do not. it may have been this was the original grouping of receipts received from Representative Lindsay I unsure So we can leave that to Mr Quinn then

It's just Amazon charges from 2022, total $325. I think those may have been, at least at the time, he had listed those out because they didn't have an explanation other than Amazon.

I believe that what had not made sense to me at the time was that the check was dated November 15th when I saw it, which was the second day of the retreat. But it was not cashed until early December, so it just didn't make sense that there would have been a way to verify very quickly since the petty cash card had been charged for that amount. and those were resolved, I believe, in those like November 18th through the 20th or 21st, all of those charges came through. So at the time it was startling to see that the check had still been cashed, but that November 15th date did not align with Representative Lindsay's representation that she had written the check several weeks after the retreat.

as of the date that I had been using the date of December 6th, the date that that check for 6358 was called on the account?

I did not.

all of the reimbursable expenditures made by Representative Lindsay. And based on those dates, we can identify all of the expenditures that occurred after December 6th is the date I've

I understand what you are saying. I don't believe that Representative Lindsay could have said how much money she had put into the account because there had not been any reconciliation. And I believe standard practice, if you use personal funds to buy something that you need to be reimbursed for, then you submit that receipt and you receive the dollars in the amount of that receipt in a reasonable time frame from when you have made that expense. I was very surprised that she had used personal funds back to 2022 and not been reimbursed for those. We found no evidence of that during the reconciliation. I believe that, you know, it is very unfortunate that Representative Lindsay made the decision to use personal funds. That was certainly never an ask of mine at any point. And I believe that I am unaware of any member of the caucus having an expectation that she used personal funds. I believe had it been communicated in 24 at the point when the caucus account may have been low, then it was the responsibility of the caucus chairs to certainly ensure that everyone who was responsible to pay dues had paid dues. but if we don't have the money to buy something, then we don't buy it. If we don't have the money to pay for a breakfast, we don't order the breakfast, which is what we ultimately did this last session. We put ourselves on a budget. Myself, Representative Joseph, and the majority leader oversaw the expenses in the account. We cut what we were spending on both breakfast and lunches dramatically so that we could complete the session and handle those. Up until, I believe, the check, up until the November 15th check in the amount of $6,000, it is possible that at that time that is the amount of money, but I don't believe any reconciliation had been completed. I did not find evidence of a reconciliation. I don't believe Mr. Quinn found evidence of a reconciliation indicating that that was the amount of money that Representative Lindsay was owed.

Yes, based on our reconciliation.

Thank you. Thank you very much, and yes, if you have follow-up questions, we will allow time for that.

I know that the committee has some questions for you, and I'm going to start with a couple of my questions. I'm curious to know when you first heard from Representative Marshall, when did he get involved in this? Did he come to you? Were there conversations? This is like a multi-part question. So I just really want to get an understanding of the conversations between Representative Joseph, Representative Marshall, Representative Lindsay, you, other leadership. How did his involvement start and what happened along the way? How did he get his information? When you put that offer out to the entire caucus, come see receipts, come see all the documentation. Did he take you up on that? Is that where he got some of his information? And what steps may have been done in those conversations that we may not have written documentation of that were your or other leadership or co-caucus chairs' attempts to resolve that issue and that conflict? I really just want to have a better understanding of Rep. Marshall's interaction here and how he came to bring this complaint. Go ahead.

Thank you. Was it also, or was it your understanding that if you had asked Representative Lindsay to step down voluntarily from the position, because that was the only way you could ask, right, for her to voluntarily do so. Was that something that you got direct conversation with Representative Marshall that that would help alleviate his concerns going forward with an ethics complaint? Was that part of a conflict resolution step that you were trying to do? And was he amenable to that as an offer if Representative Lindsay would have agreed to do that. I'm just curious if he was involved in kind of your thought process of asking her to voluntarily step down.

Okay, just one more question for me, and then I'll go to committee. So from your statements today, then it's our understanding that there was never a new account opened. It just continued to be the same account once you realized you didn't need to open a new account.

I'm curious to know who has access to the account today.

Thank you. Representative Woodrow.

Madam Chair, can we dialogue?

Representative Woodrow, I think it is a fair assessment that there were not written accounting procedures for this position, specifically around budgeting, monthly or quarterly reconciliations that were presented to the caucus. I think in hindsight, those could have been suggestions we make to the caucus co-chairs and would have provided more transparency. However, I do believe as elected officials, we understand the responsibilities we have to maintaining campaign finance accounts. And at a minimum, I think can translate the accountability of dollars that are not ours to the responsibilities of a House Dems petty cash fund. I was deeply frustrated with the management of the fund the use of personal funds the fact maybe most frustrated there had been no communication with myself or the caucus to my knowledge about the challenges we were facing in the fund I would also offer that I do not believe the failure of payment of dues is the reason we did not have sufficient funds in the account. I believe that also is because of spending that went without monthly reconciliations or any attention to what was available to us to spend for caucus functions. So yes, I would say the management of the account was unacceptable, and certainly I would not change my viewpoint of that today.

When you say documents, Representative Woodrow, do you mean receipts?

I believe that we have explained and assembled a reconciliation of the account. Certainly to the best of my ability I have confidence Mr Quinn did that as well So, yes, I believe the records are now intact. They're not going through it line by line at this point. I am confident that what you see before you is a reconciliation of the account.

Reluctant.

Yes, and I want to lift up that I'm grateful that's included in the report. There was no intention to say that Mr. Quinn was any of those things, but we did feel that starting with the reconciliation was the appropriate beginning for this effort. As I stated earlier, we did contemplate and ask the caucus about proceeding with, I won't remember my exact question in the survey, but should we proceed with a third party audit? And the caucus did not desire that, so we did not proceed.

Representative Woodrow, I don't recall specifically. I do believe Representative Lindsay had offered an explanation at the time.

Yes. Representative Epps had requested a refund of her dues. We had not had such a request come forward before. Representative Lindsay and Titone, I believe, contemplated. They did share with leadership the request had come in, and I think ultimately we all agreed that they should be refunded Okay and then final question In your assessment informed by your review of the underlying records

or are we looking at more of a case of negligent disorganization? I find some of both the explanations and behaviors unusual and concerning. I did not find evidence of criminal activity. I believe the account was poorly managed, that communication was inadequate and unacceptable. and the use of personal funds was never asked for by anyone, should not have happened, but I do not see any evidence of nefarious activity or criminal activity. I hope that's an accurate representation.

It is definitely negligent disorganization. and I would put myself in the position of being caucus chair and having to handle the sum of money that goes through this account. I have a duty to the caucus to administer account for those dollars. Do I believe that occurred in this case? No. Is that a breach of duty? That would be my offer, that yes, I had a duty to maintain an accurate accounting of these funds, that they were to be used for caucus purposes and nothing else. If I was in the shoes of caucus co-chair, seeing what I'm seeing, I would say yes, those duties, it is correct, those duties were not fulfilled.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Speaker McCluskey. I also have a few questions and we'll also continue with the same dialogue. First, I want to go back to the original line of question from Representative Lindsey's counsel and really try to, I guess, understand a little bit more of the foundation here. First of all, can anyone join the Democrat caucus?

you cannot I appreciate that Would membership in the Democrat caucus be integral to the operations of the House of Representatives if someone a Democrat

And does this expectation transcend so powerful that the members feel this overwhelming duty to pay their $2,500, or at least believe they need to pay their $2,500, to be part of the Democrat caucus, to participate in caucus meetings, to be part of this team collectively known as the Democrat caucus?

Okay. Would you view the caucus like a club or a fraternity, or would you view the caucus as more like an extension of state government operations?

Thank you. And that's an important point. In the November 2025 presentation that we were handed and was placed into the record, did anyone specifically come to you and object to any part of the contents of this presentation?

Okay. So members would have had ample time to have objected to anything that would have been presented as far as not necessarily being factual, and none of those have surfaced to your desk yet.

Okay. That's really good. The question that we certainly have is to the extent of, oh sorry, before I ask that question, I just want to Make it clear, the $2,500, is that for one year or is that for a two-year?

Okay. So every member is expected to pay the $2,500 sometime within that two-year period?

Okay. I would like to go back to the conversations within the, I guess, caucus meeting that was held. And I am not real sure if this is in June of 25 or November of 25. But when you said that the members of the Democrat caucus didn't generally want to move forward with a forensic audit of the account, did you have a sense of what the body's reasoning was for doing so?

And I want to reflect that the caucus, certainly there were differing viewpoints on that, but a majority, based on our survey results, indicated a desire just to move on.

I'm down to my last couple of questions here. Some of the receipts and images that we were provided for in this large stack of evidence include things like totes, a wagon, other tangible items. Is there a Democratic House caucus storage locker where those types of items would be maintained?

Are those items ones that pass from one caucus chair to another so that if there is another election, any sort of a tangible item remains property of the caucus and is passed on? Or does that item somehow convert and become personal property of the member that was a caucus chair?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In her response to the Marshall complaint, we're focusing on the check for the courtyard, the alleged reimbursement for the courtyard the Rep Lindsey explains that on or around the 15th she deposited in First Bank immediately went to the airport went out of town And then while she was out of town, saw an email that led her to write herself a check. And then later noticed that this was paid for and at that point made a decision based on what she was going to do with the check. In your meeting after the April 5th email, does this story align with the explanation that you were given by Rep. Lindsay in April?

um what doesn't align for me is the written response that she gave to the complaint unless she backdated the check to november 15th when she wrote it a few weeks after the retreat i'm unclear i i'm unclear um so in that meeting there was some indication from her that her account was charged for the courtyard.

So there was never any discussion in those initial meetings about how these funds instead were being deposited as a reimbursement for past expenditures. you did not get an indication that was the intent correct what that check was the check was

that her card was going to be charged that made more sense but at no point did she share she was reimbursing herself for personal funds she had used for caucus purposes so that's a narrative that came out after the fact when it was clear that her card was never charged.

Was there any discussion about why there was a big gap between the date on the check and when the check was actually cashed? This was something that was concerning to me because the story we're getting is I was concerned my account was going to get charged, and then we have a check written November 15th and then it's not cashed until December 4th. If I'm concerned that something's going to hit my account, I immediately cash the check Was there any conversations with Quinn or in any of the meetings about how this timeline didn necessarily make sense Nothing that I recall

Were there questions asked about Rep. Lindsay about why did she simply not just call the hotel and ask them to make sure that it's not going on her card? Or were there questions asked about why in April she had said her card had been cashed? Because it seems to me you would know if $6,000 were or were not on your account. So were there discussions with her about why the story had changed?

Okay. We had a lot of discussion about the exhibit provided by Mr. DeHurrera that is in evidence that outlines the expenditures that were made by Rep. Lindsay from her personal accounts that then later were tallied up to figure out how much she was. Was there ever any discussion about why most of the times she made these charges, she used her personal accounts when most of the times, if you match up the dates to the bank statement, there was plenty of money in the cash fund, the house petty cash fund?

No more questions from committee. Mr. DeHirrera.

Thank you. Just one more clarifying on that point. In Representative Marshall's complaint, he had attached several exhibits of photocopies of checks, a tracer page, more photocopies of checks, and then a couple of bank statements. So did he get these items coming to you from you, or did he get these somehow somewhere else? If he didn't come to you to examine, because I know the entire caucus wasn't sent all of this stuff out on an email. So if he didn't get it from you, where do you suppose he got all of this documentation in order to put it in his complaint?

Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Speaker McCluskey. You deserve another glass of water, and we deserve a break. So we are actually, we've been in contact with our other witnesses. We're going to take a break. It'll be our bio lunch break. Committee, are we okay shortening our lunch break to 30 minutes versus an hour? Or do we need an hour? Committee. 12.30 okay? Okay. All right. We're going to be back at 1240 for continuing our hearing. Thank you all for your patience, and we are in recess.

The committee will come back to order, and we are proceeding with our hearing and our list of witnesses. Next up on the witness list from Representative Lindsay and her attorney is Representative Titone. So we will bring her in and allow Mr. Herrera to proceed with his questions after I give the oath. Welcome, Representative Titone. Thank you for joining us today. We have a adopted procedures and rules for our committee, and one of those procedures is to administer an oath to every witness, which I will do here, and you don't have to raise your hand if you want to, and there's no book that you need to swear on, just a yes or no. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. And as a reminder, prior, as part of our procedure as well, prior to making our final determination under House Rule 49F, members of the Ethics Committee are prohibited from having any communications about the complaint or the hearings with witnesses or with Representative Lindsay. And we just ask that you continue to abide by that rule. And it's also okay during any questions today if you don't know or don't recall just to say that. And so I'll turn it over to Mr. DeHerrera for him to begin his

Yes, State Representative Brianna Tatone. I represent House District 27.

Yeah, so I'll try to address the first question. What I understood was most of the duties of the caucus chairs was to run a lot of the caucus meetings in a chair-type position. We were to help to assign offices and seats on the House floor. and we were to collect the dues from members to facilitate the lunches and other food that we would provide during our different functions that we would have. And so we would collect the money and then obtain the services to get that done. What was the other part of your question?

To my knowledge there was no rulebook playbook procedures SOP It was kind of just an informal thing that has just been passed on from one group of people to the next At one point, I was trying to come up with a type of structure, I guess, because we were having some people that were not paying dues, and we were trying to say, well, if you can't pay the dues, then you don't get the benefits of the group. But it never really materialized. It was a concept. I kind of started but never really finished with it.

when you became co-chairs in 2022?

No.

No, we were just kind of on our own to facilitate what we had to get done.

Yeah. Roughly a two-year period. That's correct. Two legislative sessions and then the interim.

No, not that I'm aware of.

No, we didn't really have any reports. It was all just kind of an internal thing we were just kind of handling.

I don't know.

Most of the meetings, we pretty much alternated back and forth. Or if someone wasn't available, we would step up to run those meetings. When it came to our breakfasts and lunches to provide those resources, it was kind of just a convenience of who has the ability to get certain things on the way to the Capitol in the morning or get things before. And I knew very well that Rep Lindsay is she likes doing this sort of thing she likes planning these kinds of things She likes having to do this And she was just always very on it She was always doing it and getting it done. And she was always providing all the things. And I said, well, can I do it? I'll do it. And she said, no, I'll just do it. It's just easy for me to do it. I can just go handle it. So it just kind of became that most of the procurement of the food was done by Rep. Lindsay because she knew exactly what she needed to get. She knew where she needed to get it. She had the relationships with some of the vendors already that she had started to use. And every once in a while, I would write the check out for that person to pay them after the lunch. But it was kind of just, I wanted to be helpful, and it just seemed like she had everything under control, so I just kind of let her do it. This was something she liked, and she had an aide that was really very hands-on with a lot of those things as well, which made it a lot easier for her to facilitate than I did, because my aide was a remote working aide, so I didn't have anybody with me.

Yes.

Well, it made sense that because she was doing the procurement of the food and making these expenditures that she was in control of the account. She had the account log in, and so she was kind of monitoring those functions. So she was in control of that. I didn't ask much about it. I just kind of assumed everything was running well until she said we need to get people to pay their dues because we're running out of money. That was really the only times that I really knew anything about the balance. I just assumed everything was fine.

I was a person who was written in on the account as an account holder.

I don't know exactly how many times, but there were a couple times that we were really trying to get people to pay their dues who hadn't paid. And it was a struggle to get people to pay the dues. We had to really get on people. And there was an urgency at at least one or two points. I don remember exactly It was a while ago now But Rep Lindsay did tell me like we got to get some of this money in And we were really trying to get those funds in At those points of urgency what did you all do What did you and Representative Lindsey do I mean, we went through our list of people who had paid and who hadn't paid and texted them and sent them messages or talked to them in person to say, hey, we need this money. we're providing all of this food and everything and we don't have the money to actually provide it if we don't continue to get that money back in so that was kind of what we ended up doing

I don't remember if we did. I think at one point we went to leadership to tell them there was a problem with getting people to pay. I don't remember when that was. But I do recall that was probably something that we did. I'm just not recalling exactly.

Yeah, there was a point where I prepaid the following year. So I wrote a check out for the following year just so I was putting money in, and then that was going to carry us over until next time, and then I would be paid up.

I don't remember what the day was, but yeah. That sounds about right.

Yeah.

I don't recall that specific conversation. I know that I did have a conversation with her about when the credit card was stolen and that somebody took money from the account and then that was reversed when the person was caught and I called the bank but I don't recall that.

Does that confirm your recollection? Yeah, I was traveling and I was at the airport and all of my credit cards were stolen. I had that one in there with my personal cards and they all got charged a whole bunch of amounts. And I didn't even realize it until I got the notification from the credit card saying that there was like an activity that didn't make sense because I didn't even know the cards were stolen. I didn't even know they were missing until I got that notification. And then I got a call from the Broomfield Police Department. I think it was Broomfield or Westminster. I think it was Broomfield. and they told me that they had caught the person who was using the cards. And so that kind of confirmed what had happened. And by that time, the charges that had come up, I said these were not authorized charges to the bank and then they were quickly reversed.

Yeah.

Did you have an understanding that at different points in time,

I believe that she told me at one point that she had put her own money in because we were short and that she was going to pay herself back. I mean, sometimes it happens by accident if you use the wrong card. I had done that when I used the card to pay for parking, and it was supposed to be my campaign card, and then I paid it back. So, I mean, sometimes mistakes happen that way. I think in this particular case that the funds were insufficient and she was trying to just maintain the status quo of providing what we do for the caucus by doing that. And that's, to my understanding, that's what she did.

Yeah, I think we had a good relationship. We shared an office. We checked in with each other just to make sure things were good. We had a few challenging situations that we had to deal with with people unhappy with certain offices and seating And so we had to work through quite a few difficult situations together, and we always found a way to do that in a professional way.

I mean, I think she stepped up and did a lot more work than I did, to be honest. I mean, I wanted to do more, but she really just liked doing this kind of stuff and was always on it, and she was always prompt, and she always had it done. And I think that she really cares about trying to do the work that she's charged to do. That's how I always viewed it.

Yes.

Well, I went down the bank and got the bank statements. I had all of those because some of them you can't get from the bank up until a certain point. So I went to the bank and asked them for a couple years' worth of the different bank statements just to show that we had that. I also provided the information from the DA's office of the theft to show that that was a criminal activity. And I think that's about it.

I gave them a speaker.

I think I also gave them to Rep. Lindsay as well

I don't know what you're referring to.

Yeah, I didn't know. I didn't know the name of the person.

Yeah, yeah, I've seen that.

Yeah, I did. I mean, it was a while ago, so I don't remember all of the details that it said. But, I mean, to my knowledge, it didn't reveal that there was a whole lot of interesting information that came out of it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Representative Titone, for being here. I when we were looking over the evidence that came well before this hearing, it appeared that the bank records indicated that there was only one debit card issued because every month there was a charge for how many cards were issued on that account. and from what I remember and wrote down is that for all of 2023 there was only one card that or the bank only charged for one debit card every month and so if that was the one that was in your possession that was stolen during 2023 did Representative Lindsay have possession of a checkbook or how else was she paying for things if there was only one card. And I, you know, I'm glad, I mean, I'd be happy if somebody corrects me. But then after that, I saw that in 2024, there were three cards issued and there was a charge for three cards every month. so I just wanted to know if you recall was there more than one card in 2023 and then in 2024 with three cards who who all were in possession of those three debit cards okay um I was under the

checkbook as well. Okay, that's good to know. The three cards at the end, I don't know why there'd be three cards. I know that on occasion, the staff, leadership staff would get the card to get

a debit card you know and then again the bank says there were three cards starting in 2024 but that she needed it to be activated by a signer on the count So just in reviewing what we had it appeared that that when she got a debit card was in January of 2024, but it wasn't activated,

I don't remember any of that. Okay. And I think Mr. DeHerrer asked one of my previous questions, so I'll go to committee, Representative Soper.

I have just a couple of questions for you.

Okay.

Yeah, I believe so, because sometimes if she was not around to pay for the lunch vendor, then I would write the check out. I presume that we were both writing the checks, but I didn't see her writing the checks, so I can't say that for sure.

I was not really writing any checks for any other purpose other than our regular expenses that we had. And I wasn't using the debit card really because most of our expenses was just food. And that was being handled by Rev. Lindsay. So because she was making the expenditures and had access to the bank account to look at the ledger online, that she was watching all of that.

No, we never really did because they were just regular things. things every week we had a breakfast and a lunch and we if we had had all of the money that was supposed to be collected from all the members we would have had enough money to provide all that but because that money didn't come in at the rate we were spending it because we had these regular expenses that's that's That's when we ended up kind of crossing that line.

I did not, no.

I was not tracking it.

Any other questions, committee? Mr. DeHerrera?

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Representative Titone. Thank you for the extra time that you spent down here today.

Go enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you. All right, well, yeah, if Mr. Quinn is available, that would be lovely.

Thank you for your patience and for joining us here today. Mr. Quinn, we have adopted some procedures and rules for the workings of this committee, and one of those is to swear in each witness with an oath, which I will administer now, and you can answer it with a simple yes or no. and also want to remind you, as I have with all the other witnesses, that prior to our conclusion of this committee, all the witnesses are prohibited from talking to any of us or each other about the proceedings here, and that if there's a question that you don't recall or don't know, please just say that. It's totally fine. So with that, I'll go ahead and give you the oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you, Mr. Quinn. And I will turn it over to Mr. DeHerrera, who will proceed with his questions for you.

Understood.

You understand?

Is this a fair depiction of that report?

Yes, I recognize this.

This appears to be the printed version of the spreadsheet I produced.

Sure. My name is William Ryan Quinn. I go by Will. My current position is the Director of Compliance at the Colorado Democratic Party.

I started January 1 of 2023.

Sure. I have a B.A. from Metro State in business administration. I have a minor in philosophy with a focus on business ethics.

I worked as the operations and finance director for the Colorado Democratic Party in the 22 coordinated campaign.

Sure. We all wear many hats at the party, but my primary focus is financial reporting to both the federal government and the state of Colorado, to the people of America and the people of the state of Colorado. Every financial transaction that comes through, every penny in and out needs to be accounted for and reported. That's my primary position. I do the accounting and bookkeeping for the party as well.

were asked to do a review of the petty cash fund is that correct that is correct would you tell us how that came about who asked you what were you asked uh sure i was approached by my chair who had I'd spoken to Speaker McCluskey about doing a review of the account. That's really the long and short of it is I was approached by Chair Mirab, and then I got a hold of Speaker McCluskey who kind of explained to me, you know, could you take a look at this? Let us know if anything stands out. And that was the intro to the entire process.

Originally, it was just take a look. So I do this a lot with our county parties when there turnover with treasurers It a volunteer workforce that occasionally happens You know you go and you spot check make sure things are in line with your reporting and your books and your bank So that was my original understanding that gradually morphed into, you know, we kind of need to rebuild the books. There were none at the time. So initially, is it fair to say,

I would agree with that statement.

details. We're not just trying to test your memory here. As I sit here today, I don't recall the exact

That sounds right, yes.

Absolutely.

Sure. So originally I had asked for books. I was like just – I would need to see some sort of documentation. Generally speaking, I would be referencing Tracer or something for a county party. I found out afterwards this was not a regulated account. So at that point, I asked for the books to cross-reference between the bank account and what was on paper. At that point, I did not receive anything, so I requested access to the bank account so I could download information, start putting together a record so we could start comparing it to what should be happening, what happened in reality. um that's that's essentially what i started with is um get access to the bank account so i could download data and begin reconstruction at that point and that would be access to like the monthly bank statements for the account that's what it ended up being uh first bank only allows you to download 160 to 180 days worth of data uh the rest was transcribed from bank statements okay

There were no restrictions I was aware of up front. It was just take a look.

you received or were requesting? Sure. I communicated predominantly through Speaker McCluskey. That was the primary point of contact. Okay. And as this project started,

comfortable doing that you felt, yeah, I can do this? Insofar as reconstructing the data, yes.

could do this independently? Yes. The work itself is relatively independent. There's no spin you can put on accounting really It numbers It numbers Numbers Okay All right let go back into the work So you start to make some requests for information

Sure, yeah. The general process for reconstructing books is you want to try to get as much contemporaneous documentation as possible. So I believe a few of those requests went out. I don't recall exactly when, but I know I communicated that up to Speaker McCluskey saying, you know, we need receipts for a lot of this stuff. The original spreadsheet I was working with was just highlighted yellow across the board. We slowly, as we determined in my meetings with Speaker McCluskey that these are legitimate charges, we started unhighlighting things. And so the original request for receipts went out, at least from me to Speaker McCluskey. I then received a tranche of receipts. There was some time that passed where we were processing those. And then sometime later, it was after Speaker McCluskey and I met with Representative Lindsay where we requested more receipts and we got another tranche after that. So it did take some time, but we were able to to get some documentation in that regard.

Yes. They were general reimbursable receipts, just various charges to, like, Amazon, things of that nature. The receipts themselves, I believe I sent them all in. They, you know, receipts were provided with generally what was it. I didn't really necessarily have a purpose at that point, but I wasn't so much concerned with purpose as I was about legitimizing the expense.

Right, yeah. And I lacked specific context for a lot of this stuff, so it wasn't really – I did not feel it was my role to generate that context. I would develop the data and pass it upwards.

Also reimbursables. Also reimbursables.

Generally, no. That was done more informally in conversation where we could point to a transaction and there was a legitimate explanation for it. So I would ideally love to have had receipts for everything. But in that context, I had two separate people agreeing that this was, in fact, what that charge was for. I felt that was legitimate enough to proceed to validate it at least.

Correct. And checks, obviously, are pretty specific. That's written to the actual organization that is doing the work for you.

Correct, yes.

Yes, that sounds right.

That is correct, yes.

Does that sound right? Yes, that's correct. There was a double counting of a transaction. I'm happy to put that in the record.

I believe it was.

Yeah, take your time. It's hard if I don't have the actual spreadsheet document in front of me. I know where the tabs live there, but I believe it's on the second page.

With the records that were provided to me, that's about the best I could do with my final adjustment, yes.

That's a good question. I think I would have loved to have seen more original documentation lined up against transactions instead of having it be agreed upon by people. That just comes from my background in compliance where we absolutely must have documentation for every transaction we have. So that's just where my training leads me. I think there were outstanding questions still that might have been more in the leadership circle that I simply could not address just from the numbers alone.

We're not talking about whether a transaction was proper or anything like that, but yeah, I know what all these transactions are in 2022.

I believe so, insofar as what actually came into the account and where the money actually went out of the account. Yes.

Sure. I convened with Speaker McCluskey a lot, who I know is communicating with other members. We took a meeting with Representative Lindsay as well, where we went through and kind of itemized out this. This is a concern here. What is this? What is this? And through that conversational process, I felt I felt confident that these were legitimate expenses. You know, they weren't anything crazy like, you know, gold watches for everybody. They were typical expenses you see in a political environment for meetings and things of that nature And you were also able to identify what the expense was or what the payment was This went to Amazon on this date or this went to Safeway on this date Correct. Okay.

Without it in front of me. is, it'd be kind of hard for me to recall, but I do know there's an intro section.

Oh, the spreadsheet, I'm sorry.

Yeah, sure.

I believe this is the, yes, it's the paid to Rep. Lindsay and received from Rep. Lindsay calculations.

Sure. Yeah. The paid two rep Lindsay are the checks that were written out to her. I was able to view those in the bank account. The dates that they were signed or written rather are on the check images and then the date they were cashed is in the actual ledger on the bank account received from rep lindsey um generally speaking same answer uh but there were a couple items in here that needed clarification like some of the uh direct deposits and mobile deposits but i believe we worked those out okay and then for each of those sets of cells there's a total underneath the $10,177.03 and the $36,94.37.

Correct.

This was the at least year-over-year math for received and checks paid to Rep. Lindsay and checks received from Rep. Lindsay. The wording may be not the best there, but it was basically the in and out year over year. So the top part is a breakdown by year of the information that's on page one.

And then you get a total net of negative 6482.66.

Is that right?

And that number, 6853, I believe,

If you look here in what we've printed out,

Do you see that? Correct, yes.

I believe the second to last page is the binder that I received. I believe that's what that is. And then the third to last page were the other expense of the second tranche of reimbursable expenses I received.

That was my understanding, yes.

Then below that, minus 925 gets a number of 6853.48.

I do.

I'm not sure if that final calculation lives here. That might have just been a scratch calculation. then the top sheet should have had that represented in it.

But if you go to the second to last page, the total there is 778.48? Yes. It looks like that's the total of all of these line items on these two pages.

Is that right?

That sounds correct, yes.

Okay, this looks familiar, yes.

yes so two separate tabs were calculating with the same amount So again, without the spreadsheet in front of me to see the actual formula logic, she caught that it was a double calculation or double counting. So at the time when I looked into it and had the formulas in front of me, I agreed with her.

It looks like I subtracted that amount from the total reimbursable expenses in the page that you referenced. Right. So total reimbursable expenses went from 778.48 to 6853.48.

And then that number, the 685348, is what we see if we go back to the second page as the reimbursable expenses for Representative Lindsey.

So then you compare that number to the number above that, the 6482.66.

Correct.

It's $370.34.

That represents what is owed to Representative Lindsay for just outstanding reimbursements.

That appears to be November and December activity from 2022.

Most of it. It does appear to be either sorted or filtered, so I can't, at least for the printed version, I can't say that's everything, but that appears to be most of it.

That appears to be activity for 2023.

Correct.

This appears to be the 2024 tab. showing all deposits and credits I believe so for that year

which would be 9 and 10

2025 tab for so the activity for 2025

Do you see those? I do.

Those appear to be the dues paid, itemized out, I believe. I would have to see the title of the tab that they're under, but that's what it looks like to me.

Yes.

Yes.

Do you see those? Yes, these are the binder receipts.

I received it from Speaker McCluskey. I believe she got it from Representative Lindsey.

Correct.

That looks right.

it has date, item, amount, total, 325, 22?

What is this? As I sit here today, I don't recall. But it looks as entries from Amazon for a certain amount and a certain date, right? That's correct, yeah.

I think I on it Okay And if you look about three of the way down there an entry for check number 1222

Do you see that entry?

And I apologize that it's hard to read the small font.

I thought about printing these as 11 by 17, but that seemed a little too much.

It is that, right?

you could see at any given time during this period how much reimbursable expenditures or deposits into the account representative lindsey had made at a given point in time so that you could if you wanted to you could look at that those that information and say well on this date where she wrote that check for 63 58 i could now determine how much in reimbursable expenditures she had. One could do that with the relevant data, yes. Right. And so if we go back

expenses incurred by Representative Lindsay. I believe I'm there.

we can see which expenditures were made after that date, after December 6th.

And if you isolate those numbers, whatever total that amount is,

Yes, one could do that.

because we have the dates to back into a number of what was –

Is that right? I did my report. You're referring to my spreadsheet. I get confused because I did a written report, and then the spreadsheet is – Sorry, the spreadsheet.

Yes. I suppose one could do that, yes.

like to use the numbers in that way. It's not necessarily saying those are the right numbers, but if those are the right calculations, that's what that would represent. Could you rephrase the question? Sorry. Yeah.

for in theory yeah okay thank you

Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Quinn. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Quinn. I wanted to follow up on something that was in the letter to the speaker where your initial, I guess, assessment in the written document, not the spreadsheet,

Thank you. And I think you also may have said that referenced as you were looking through all of this paperwork and files that there was some kind of separate personal record keeping system that representative lindsey used that you referred to

Committee. Representative Soper.

Insofar as certifications and things of that nature, no.

It boiled down, I suppose, sure. It was a review of the account as a whole. Generally speaking, I would be referencing a trace of report and then a bank account and just seeing if there's anything missing. In this case, it was just the bank account and reproducing essentially the books as best I could.

No.

Yes, there was text message documentation provided to me in the binder that explained it. And then I also spoke with Representative Lindsay, I believe, in that meeting that we had about the context for that. It originally stood out to me as well. But after discussion, it was for, I don't recall what it was for exactly off the top of my head, but I was given an explanation and provided secondary documentation that was timely and corresponded to that date.

No, it is not.

Sometimes. I would say, generally speaking, if you have an actual petty cash fund, that's where you'd see that, but you would be doing your impress system and recording that. Generally, no, though.

I don't believe I could directly answer that question. This is the first time I've experienced a caucus account, so I can't speak to the normal nature of that.

At the time, that was not something I had context for. I did highlight it and elevate it to Speaker McCluskey to hopefully get some context on that. Through conversations, it was revealed to me more towards the end of this process what that was for,

I did not independently verify every single receipt. It was my impression that those had been validated, verified by the time I got the data, and I pushed that data back upwards for any further consideration. on that specific matter at least.

Yeah, sure. Originally, and to the best of my recollection, obviously the Foot Locker charges stood out. That was a big red flag. there were certain food and drink and beverage transactions that were small enough to be for like one person. So those kind of got highlighted. There was a lot that was highlighted on here up front that I had immediate concerns about. And I wish I could remember more, but this was a while ago.

Representative Mabry.

At the time, no.

No.

At the time I did not make any immediate conclusions I knew that it needed to be answered for though Whether it was for something else I did not have that context available to me at the time So I informed Speaker McCluskey that this is standing out We need to resolve this

No.

Yes.

That's correct.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here, Mr. Quinn. I am looking at the report that you – a memo that you sent to the Speaker of the House last June. And in it, you have a quantitative summary, 2025 to date, and a pie chart where you broke down the expense categories. Total revenue at that point, and this is, again, at that time, so those numbers would be updated since then. But total revenue deposits were $21,769.37. Total expenditures were $42,615.27. Average monthly burn rate was $3,474.32. The spending-to-revenue ratio was 196%. And you noted the fund has spent nearly twice what it has taken in over this period. This reflects a structural imbalance between income and expenditure, and you go on to give some commentary and some recommendations. I'm just curious, do you think this is gross negligence or just bad bookkeeping?

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Quinn, for coming and for your time. Thank you for bringing your muscle. It's nice to see you, Ms. Tierney. So how much time would you say you spent compiling your report and the narrative? including getting the data together for the the spreadsheet the whole shebang

Okay, so somewhere between 40 and 100 hours of time for you to compile this, the data, the spreadsheet, and the report. Yes, and to make sense of it all, too, to get the context that I needed to apply certain categories to certain things Sure and you described your qualifications and you also were careful in your report to note that this was not a formal audit forensic examination, or legal analysis. And you were careful to state, and I believe your disclaimer was that you're not a CPA, and that's correct? That's correct. Those titles and

And you've received no formal training to conduct forensic accounting or audits?

Okay. Maybe in the future?

Oh, great. You were asked by Rep. Lindsay's counsel if you felt like you were qualified to perform this, And your answer, I believe, was that you felt qualified insofar as you were reconstructing the data.

Yeah. Okay. Are there any aspects of the project that you were asked to perform that you would believe you were unqualified for?

And so part of the function that you did feel qualified was in the reconstructing of the data. But you also testified that you would have liked to have seen more documentation. Is that correct?

And that documentation would have been receipts?

Okay. So it's fair to say that you had receipts for some of the expenditures, but not all of the expenditures, correct? I'm sorry.

I see that you keep hitting the button and not hitting the button, and that's a really good thing to do to pause. You probably just don't need to do that because we're going to be talking back and forth.

Thank you. No problem. so going just just to to go back you didn't you were compiling the data you did not have receipts for everything and where you did not have receipts you relied on conversations maybe even text message exchanges or other forms of communication to sort of reconstruct what happened is that fair

Okay. And without having a receipt for a given transaction, are you able to state with 100% certainty what those funds were actually spent on?

The ledger gives a readout of the organization.

the transaction and the recipient of the funds, but would you actually know on a granular level, the same as if you had a receipt, let's say? Would you be able to know what the funds would be?

spreadsheet so if you want to go three pages back i count them as being a total of 18 and so three back from the end is page 16 at the top it says receipts on hand reconciled yes okay so you know going all the way to the bottom the second one from the bottom is 111 dollars 87 cents to king supers on may 7th 2024 you see that yes okay and so if you had a receipt for what was spent at king supers you would be able to see item by item what was purchased at king supers correct that's correct but without a receipt you wouldn't exactly know what was spent at king supers is that fair uh that

did come with a receipt attached to it.

I decided to choose the page that had receipt.

But for the pages that don't have receipts necessarily, you could see that money was spent at King Soopers or at Brothers Barbecue or at another restaurant, but you wouldn't necessarily know if it was all on food or if Rep. Lindsay managed to purchase a few extras on the side because you don't have a receipt to actually break out what the money went to.

That's the importance of receiving those in a timely manner. Great. So we agree on that. Turning back to the first page, you see at the top, and I have to squint because I'm getting older, The very first line is a January 22nd, 2025 check number 1224 in the amount of $500. And the note is no memo. You see that?

Do you have an understanding of what that $500 went to?

Okay, and same question with respect to the fourth item down, check number 1320 for $489, reimbursement no purpose. Do you see that?

I remember that check.

The memo line was blank. Okay, and sitting here today, do you have an understanding of what that $489 went to?

Do you know if you have notes anywhere that would explain that $500 and that $489?

But sitting here today, you don't know what that explanation was?

Rep Lindsay counsel turning your attention to the demonstrative that Rep Lindsay counsel provided second number up from the bottom is You see that Yes And a lot has sort of been discussed about the Do you recall that that was three checks, one for $800, one for $100, and one for $25, all deposits that Rep. Lindsay made into the caucus account?

Right. Are you aware that Rep. Lindsay, in her production to the committee, classified those payments into the caucus account as loans?

Your correspondence with the speaker went back and forth about the $925, and it was eventually taken out as a double counting. Isn't it fair to say that that had a de facto or ultimate result of that decision to take it out, acted as a forgiveness by Rep. Lindsay of those loans?

Did Rep. Lindsay ever come to you during any of the Zoom meetings and say, hey, I know that that $925 was classified by myself as loans, but I forgive them?

Okay. And so without the receipts and without doing a formal audit or forensic examination, without having the training or the licensure to do those things, still after somewhere between 40 hours and 100 hours worth of your time you compiled the report and you reached a conclusion that says that the fund appears to have been used for its intended purpose

Sure. Now, saying that the majority of expenditures appear to be in line with general caucus spending, is that the same thing as saying that the management of the account complied with generally accepted accounting standards?

Okay. So it's still up in the air even after your conclusion. Strike that. Your conclusion does not resolve whether or not generally acceptable accounting standards were used to manage this account. Is that fair to say?

Okay. Based on your understanding of generally acceptable accounting standards?

I believe you testified that when it comes to the state party funds you have things like dual approval separation of duties contemporaneous documentation and a budget Those are the things that you could name while you were sitting here.

That's what I named while I was sitting here, yes. Yeah. And is it fair to say that you might even have more safeguards at the state party level?

You just can't think of in the moment because I understand.

I got a watch telling me that I'm on the fritz right now. So it's fair to say that the state party has greater controls over its accounting practices with respect to the funds and accounts that the state party manages.

And those things like dual approval, contemporaneous docs, a budget, separation of duties, those were not implemented by the caucus co-chairs with respect to the Democratic House petty cash fund. Is that fair?

Okay. So it's also fair to say that the state party doesn't keep its books. like the house petty cash fund was maintained.

Okay. Nothing further.

Yes, please.

because my understanding of why you made the final adjustment to your spreadsheet is different than the line of questioning by Representative Woodrow. So if you'll look back, and my understanding is different, and mine was based on that email that Speaker McCluskey sent to you. So if you'll look back to there, and then if you can walk us through what Speaker McCluskey was identifying, and then what was the adjustment that you made, because my understanding was that that number, that amount, 925, was in two places in your spreadsheet. It was in the reimbursables, and it was also on this first page in that lower chart. And then if you had it on both in the reimbursement number and in that chart on the first page, then when you do your net equation or try to figure out the net amount that's either O2 or by Representative Lindsay, without that fix, the 825 would have shown up twice. So can you walk us through what that final fix was and what Speaker McCleskey was identifying to you? Sure. As I sit here today, I don't recall it line by line, but I believe her email is accurate. I seem to remember at the time, let's see, that was the next yes I responded to her the next day made the adjustment that she mentioned and without again without the spreadsheet in front of me here to see the formula logic it I don't know if I can speak more to it than I believe that this is accurate and I don recall the actual step by step how we went about getting there Maybe if we could go to page what I believe is page 16 which shows all the reimbursable expenditures by Representative Lindsay

That looks correct.

Yes. And so if you went to the second page, right, where you do the net calculation, because those three deposits are listed on the first page, they show up in the upper part of page two, right?

I believe so.

That sounds familiar.

Yes.

That appears to be why, yes.

I believe that's right.

Isn't that correct?

Isn't that correct?

Correct.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Quinn, and thank you for accompanying him today. We appreciate your time and the hours and hours and hours of uncountable hours that you gave to this cause. So enjoy the rest of your day. We will move on. Do we need a short break? All right. We will recess for five minutes and be back at... 2.38. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. The committee will come back to order, and we will have Ms. Berger go get our next witness, who is Kate Ehrlich. Thank you for waiting for us Go ahead and have a seat. We appreciate your time today. And as you may have heard, if you've been listening at all, with every witness, I do have you take an oath. You can just sit there and answer the question with a simple yes, no. And I also want to remind you, as well as all the other witnesses, that you need to refrain from talking about anything to do with this hearing with any of the members of the committee or any other witnesses. And it's okay to answer a question if you don't know the answer. You can't remember. It's fine. So with that, the oath is, do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Is there a little green light where it plugs into the table?

And then you can just leave it on. Sweet. Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe Ms. Ehrlich is one of the committee's witnesses.

So we would defer and allow the committee to go first.

Yeah. So I was her aid starting May of 2025 up until. July 1st of this year. of 2026. 2026, correct. And were you full time? Yes. Okay. And did you, did she ever have you participate in picking up any items for the caucus or meals, you know, to go to a restaurant and pick things up and bring them back to the caucus? Yeah, there was times where I would pick up meals. And it was pretty much everything that I drove and got would be meals, I believe.

anything out of your own expenses no or you felt the need to no okay great those are all my questions

did you ever assist rep lindsey in um any in any preparation for conversations that she was going to have with leadership about management of the petty cash fund. So we have evidence that she put together a bunch of sticky notes, to present on where funds had been. Did you assist with anything like that?

Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just kind of following up on the last line of questions, I guess one question we had is when you became Representative Lindsay's aide, was it made clear to you that you might be undertaking, say, administrative duties for the House Democratic Caucus?

Did you feel that any part of the work or supporting the caucus, such as picking up food or maybe keeping track of receipts or helping find evidence for this committee, went beyond the scope of what you expected as far as being a legislative aide to the representative?

Were you provided any specialized training or given guidance in terms of what was expected for the caucus portion of your aideship?

During the time that you worked for the representative, did you help with things that you felt were beyond your skill, or was this reasonable?

Okay. Good. Thank you.

remember okay and did you hold a position before an internship with her office no okay um and then

In May of 2025.

Correct.

In July, July 1st of this year.

Thank you so much.

I did purchase some snacks from Safeway for, I believe it was a caucus debrief last summer. Otherwise, it was typically food from a restaurant.

the caucus? No. Okay. And did you ever witness the purchase of any items at all that weren't

No.

Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Ehrlich, for your time. I will let Mr. DeHerrera follow up.

We were working at it for a couple days there. And it was a lot of work or at least significant, it sounds like?

And was there a point in time where the office was not available because of remodeling work going on with the floor? Do you recall any of that?

What can you tell us about that?

And are you aware of any sort of tangible items that have been purchased for the caucus, such as like carts to carry things, those types of things? Are you aware of any of those tangible items that have been purchased for the caucus?

What are the tangible items that you're aware of?

So those were used for caucus purposes?

And where are those stored?

Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. All right. Well, thank you, Ms. Ehrlich. We appreciate you showing up here in person today and for your time, so go enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you. All right. Okay, we're going to have Jacqueline Davison next, so give us just a moment. Thank you Good afternoon, Ms. Davison. Thank you for joining us today and for being willing to be a witness in these hearings. with every witness I just review procedure that any dealings or conversations about these hearings is not to be communicated with the members of the committee or with any of the other witnesses just so that you understand that going forward. And also if you get a question where you don't know the answer to it's okay to say I don't know or I can't remember. And then we are asking every witness to swear to an oath that you can simply answer yes or no. So I'll give you that oath right now. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you very much. I will start with the first few questions. could you tell us when you were an aide for Representative Lindsay and if you were full-time

or her aide, were you asked to participate in picking up items from the grocery store or from a restaurant that had ordered food for one of our meals? And if so, were you also instructed to obtain receipts when you picked up those items?

And then to your question about receipts, I don't remember specific instructions for what to do with receipts.

So when you place those orders on your own DoorDash, you were using the Caucus Petty Cash Fund debit card to pay for them, or were you needing to pay for them yourself?

So in your capacity, were you also campaign staff for Representative Lindsay?

but we did agree on an amount.

So this is a separate line of questioning, of course, but in your understanding when you signed, when you were able to become a legislative aide, There was an understanding with Representative Lindsay that you would have some supplemental pay, like a lot of aides do, from their members that does come from their campaign account. So is that what you're describing here?

But in furtherance of that detail, you're saying that it wasn't necessarily regular or what you expected.

okay and so any receipts that you did obtain whether they were on your door dash account or through being the liaison for this person that would go pick up food did you get receipts from that person that brought the food and then what did you do with the receipts that were in your

that's correct you know and then that was it okay great that's that's all I have representative

i you had mentioned it in the you had mentioned it in the context of doordash but beyond that

And so I didn't always understand which card was which. It was more of just like the last four numbers. okay um and um you were uh rep lindsey's aid when we had the retreat in november of 2024 correct

I remember we had been working with a different hotel that I was communicating with directly, and then we realized that we weren't going to be able to move forward, or that hotel never gave them a credit card. And then when we shifted to this hotel, I believe because it was so close to the date of the retreat that I didn't play a large role there because it's just another person. And I don't recall giving them any credit card or any information like that.

I did order some of the food, but I didn't, not the hotel.

Was there such an intermingling of what card was being spent that it's possible that reimbursement might have been sought for something that was spent with a campaign card?

Let me, if I understand correctly, you're asking if some of these expenses that she's asking a reimbursement for were used, she spent on her campaign card and not the caucus card. Is that correct? No, no, the other way around. Spent her campaign card and not her personal card And not her personal card Yeah because the examples that were being provided is we having a lot of conversation about use of personal funds for caucus expenditures You had

do you think it's possible that outside the scope of DoorDash that some caucus expenditures were done with a campaign card and then therefore maybe some reimbursement is in facto to a campaign and not to replicate the inner individual capacity?

that in the tracer reports from around that time.

All right, Mr. DeHarrera. Thank you for participating, but I don't believe we have any questions. Okay, I'll follow up with one that we asked Ms. Ehrlich. I know that there were some items that are physical items like cards and dollies and things that were purchased. Do you know where those are being kept?

Historically?

Like the decorations?

Yeah.

Representative Sofer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just had some similar questions that we'd had for Representative Lindsay's other aide. And so when you were hired to be the representative's aide, was it ever an expectation that you would be helping with her duties as caucus chair?

were you given any sort of special training or guidance to fulfill that function i was not

to move forward with that. So you never did set up a Democratic caucus DoorDash account?

Fair enough. How would you describe I guess what you actually did in terms of the work for the caucus not for Representative Lindsay but in terms of duties that would stem from the caucus co

Did you ever maintain control of a credit card or a checkbook?

That makes sense. Did you have a budget when going to purchase catering? Did the representative tell you, we only have $1,000 to spend for this lunch, so make it a good one?

Did you ever have a sense of how much was in the caucus account?

did i guess that um cause you concern knowing that i mean you do have a card that may be linked to

Did you ever get a sense from the representative of the shortness of funds?

Could you describe that?

I mean, I'm just kind of wanting to know what your sense was at that point in time.

Thank you. Thank you. I have one just follow-up with the writing of the checks. Did you ever need the occasion to go to Representative Chitone? Because she also had a checkbook to get the needed check, and were some of these interactions where it took a while to pay a vendor? Did you take those conversations to Representative Titone or anyone else to try to facilitate that process?

So it sounds like this was causing you a lot of anxiety and stress as well.

A burden that you weren't necessarily expecting to take on.

And when you went to the chief of staff and the legislative aide liaison, what kind of help or intervention did they provide for you?

And so following on that, any conversations with the chief of staff or the legislative aid liaison, did it just fade into the distance, or were there ongoing conversations happening?

You just had an oral agreement A handshake agreement Okay All right I don see any other hands So thank you very much for waiting for your time and for showing up here in

Go enjoy the rest of your day.