June 15, 2026 · Committee on Ethics · 4,116 words · 9 speakers · 76 segments
Are we live?
Yes, I think so.
Oh, okay. Great.
Yes, we should be live now.
Okay, great. The House Committee on Ethics will come to order, and Ms. Berger, please call the roll.
Representatives Garcia-Sander.
Present.
Mabry?
Here.
Woodrow?
Here.
Soper?
Here.
Madam Chair?
Here.
All right. Thank you all for being here today. As you know, we have scheduled about 13 people to come before the committee next week. And the vast majority of them are willing and able to appear in person, which is great. One witness who was both listed on Representative Lindsay's list and as well as our committee's requested list was Representative Joseph. And she has indicated that she is unwilling to appear voluntarily unless subpoenaed. And we are meeting today to discuss the committee's thoughts and wishes on how to proceed on this one witness. I know that our great staff at OLLS has sent out a memorandum for us on legislative subpoenas and just some background information there. So thank you very much for that. and for those of us that again are not attorneys the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45 and Joint Rule 33 in the General Assembly I appreciated that that overview and so I understand that if there is some conflict between those rules that we are to follow Joint Rule 33. Ms. Love or Ms. Chase, will you confirm that that understanding is correct?
Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair. Christy Chase, Office of Legislative Legal Services. That is correct, Madam Chair. The rules of civil procedure govern court proceedings. Again, they were provided sort of as a guide, and maybe if there's anything that you need to glean from those rules for purposes of filling in any gaps, but this body is governed by the provisions of
joint rule 33. And the only other question I had, well, one of the questions I had on what you had sent over is that it seemed in what you sent that we needed some kind of permission to have subpoena of power vested in us by legislative council. And is that a given at this point, or is that a step that we still need to take? Ms. Chase?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Joint, I mean, sorry, excuse me, House Rule 49 already grants you that authority. You do not need separate authority. The other committees that don't have a specific rule that governs their procedures would have to go through legislative council. But since House Rule 49 directs that this committee has the power to issue subpoenas in accordance with Joint Rule 33, that's all the power that you need.
Okay. Thank you for that. Before I ask for comments or input from the committee, I just wanted to say from my point of view that Representative Joseph has been an integral part of all that has occurred in this issue over the past year or so since she has been caucus co-chair. And even though she was not part of the complaint per se or bringing the complaint forward, being part of the management of the fund, I think is important for her to come before the committee. And since we asked for her to appear as well as Representative Lindsey, I have questions for her, and I'm sure maybe some of you do, and Representative Lindsey might as well. So it is my deep desire that she come before the committee for us to ask any of the questions that we have. And I wanted to hear from the rest of you, since she is the only one that is not willing to come voluntarily.
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is, did Representative Joseph indicate whether it was a reason for not being in the state or just that she would not be availing herself to the committee?
Representative Soper, my understanding is that she will be in the state and that she understood that coming before the committee was a voluntary ask for any of the witnesses. And her indication was that she would not be able to appear voluntarily, but would respond to our authority to potentially subpoena her if testimony was required. So, you know, and whether or not we have in-person or virtual testimony for her would be another question. But my understanding is that she would be in the state next week. Representative Wood, oh, follow up, Representative Sober.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess I would add perhaps a comment here that I do feel that she is integral to our fact-finding mission here, being the caucus co-chair, as we're trying to determine whether an ethical violation occurred, whether there was some sort of gross negligence or deviation from the position of trust. And the other person who had been granted that authority and trust should also be able to answer questions before this committee. So I would be inclined to issue such a subpoena.
Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree that the subpoena should be issued. My question, and I apologize that this was already covered, it's for OLS. if she were to move to quash the subpoena or not show up in response to the subpoena, what's our recourse? Do we have to go to court to enforce it?
Ms. Chase or Ms. Love?
Ms. Love. Thank you, Madam Chair. Elena Love, Office of Legislative Legal Services. So unlike a court in a court setting where there would be the option to find someone in contempt or whatnot, we do have some statute that speaks to it. Section 2-2-3-14 says a person who fails or refuses to obey a summons commits a class 2 misdemeanor. It does say such summons and there is a summons section in 2 that gives the General Assembly or the Senate or the House of Representatives specifically the authority to compel a witness to come attend with or without documents before a committee So if we were to treat this ethics committee as falling under that 2 then the recourse for someone not obeying the subpoena issued by the committee would be that it's a class two misdemeanor. We did not, we could take more time to look into it,
but nothing else appeared obvious as a way to really compel the person to come in and make them testify. It's just, if you didn't, here's the penalty. Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Ms. Love. And to follow up on that a little bit, just in terms of our communications with Representative Joseph, she has indicated that she would comply with any subpoena issued by the committee.
Okay. Is there any specification with this sort of subpoena that she has to appear in person? This goes to my follow-up question and the information that you sent, how reimbursement of travel in response to a subpoena on page three of that memo that you sent us that we would be required to reimburse representative joseph for travel following a subpoena and i understand that this is how the rule is written my discomfort with that is that all of these other witnesses have voluntarily said that they will appear and none of them are able to receive reimbursement for their travel. It seems a little strange with the budgetary situation that we're in. And I'm curious to know if we could discuss this, number one, but also consider if a person was appearing virtually, would they be required for some kind of reimbursement or is it only for travel? This just seems a strange situation that we're in relative to all these other witnesses that are appearing before this committee. So is there any gray area here, Ms. Chase, that we need to explore? or Ms. Love?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to tap into my colleague from Legislative Council for some of the mechanics of how members would be allowed to get mileage reimbursement if they have to come for a meeting. I'm not sure if even members voluntarily appearing wouldn't be able to seek the normal reimbursement that they otherwise can. but before I put her on the spot to answer that question, I will say that in terms of a witness being subpoenaed, if you were to choose to issue a subpoena to Representative Joseph and if you allow her to testify remotely, you don't get mileage reimbursement if you don't actually travel. So if she doesn't travel anywhere, she won't be entitled to any reimbursement. But if she comes in person to the Capitol under the rule, it seems that she would be entitled to reimbursement at the normal rate, which is 63 cents per mile is my understanding at this point. Other witnesses who have voluntarily appeared, the rule doesn't address them. This is only the mileage reimbursement is required when the committee issues a subpoena. So you're forcing someone to come at the time that you designate, as opposed to the other witnesses that we've been able to work with and then try to accommodate their schedules. And you've also accommodated some requests for remote testimony. for some witnesses who aren't able to appear in person. Others are appearing in person, and the authorization to reimburse them for mileage is only in connection with issuing a subpoena. Okay.
Thank you for that. Okay. Do you want to – I'm not sure if I put Ms. Berger on the spot and if she's able to respond or not. I apologize if you didn't go down that path.
It's okay.
I like to know what the rules are, know where the gray area is, and do the right thing here. So it just seemed strange to me when I was reading through the memo. Ms. Berger.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I can really only speak to how travel reimbursement works during the interim for legislative members of a committee. So the statute authorizes, in legislative council's opinion, the statute authorizes the members of the House Ethics Committee to receive per diem for attendance at the meetings of the committee. And along with that authorization comes reimbursement for travel expenses. So it's really just the five members of the committee that are statutorily authorized for their attendance at these meetings to receive first per diem and then second travel expenses. And that's really where my expertise about travel reimbursement ceases. But happy to try and answer any questions beyond that.
Okay. I think that's clear enough. If you're a member of a committee and you travel to the Capitol for a meeting, yes, these witnesses don't fall under that. But with this kind of carve out with subpoenaing somebody, there's a separate rule for that, no matter who they are. Okay, further discussion on our desire to subpoena Representative Joseph or go without her testimony or answering questions. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have just one question and then I would recommend making a motion. I was curious, has a committee, like an ethics committee, subpoenaed in the past? Do we have the history from that?
Ms. Chase?
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Soper, for the question. We do not. This is the furthest along any ethics committee has ever gotten, so no ethics committee has actually been in the position of having this opportunity to issue a subpoena. So everything you are doing from here on out is new and groundbreaking.
Is that true for even the Independent Ethics Commission? Have they ever had to subpoena someone?
Thank you, Madam Chair. In fact, they have, and we've used some of their subpoenas as samples to create the form for this committee to consider using. Yes, they do regularly subpoena witnesses, and they also, when they subpoena witnesses, it's all remote testimony. They operate remotely entirely.
Okay. Further questions or comments from the committee? Okay. I'm not seeing any. Representative Soper, would you make a motion for us, please?
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House Ethics Committee subpoena Representative Ginny Joseph of Boulder to come before the Ethics Committee on the 23rd of June, if that's correct.
I think I heard a second note, Representative Garcia Sander.
Thank you.
Any further discussion on this motion? All right. Seeing none, Ms. Berger, please call the roll.
Representative Garcia Sander Yes Yes Mabry Yes Woodrow Yes Soper Yes Madam Chair Yes
Passes 5-0. That passes 5-0. So next steps, what happens now if Ms. Chase?
Thank you, Madam Chair. The subpoena would need to specify whether you want her to appear in person or remotely, and we would need to specify the date and the time for her to appear, whether it's remotely or in person. If it's in person, we need to indicate the room, which I assume will be, I believe, actually it is 112. We already have that designated. um so i need to know from the committee whether um you're subpoenaing her to appear in person or remotely and then at what time you want her to appear okay from the rough um schedule that we have that we're trying to work on with our witnesses. I had a question about Tuesday the 23rd. We potentially could be starting at 8 a.m., but at this point there's no one from that 8 or 8.30 block.
I see. Okay. Also, there is potentially time at the end of that day, and those might be the only openings.
Madam Chair.
Right, Ms. Chase, yes.
That's correct. And if I could just clarify, given the hearing procedures that the committee adopted, there is a little, since this is a witness that was requested by both the committee and by Representative Lindsay, following the order of how we're scheduling the witnesses, we would need to schedule Representative Joseph before Kate Ehrlich, which is the first witness on the list that was requested only by the committee. Ms. Ehrlich has already accommodated the committee in terms of agreeing to move to the afternoon when she had requested to appear in the morning. So I just want you to be aware of the fact that she's already been very accommodating and I am reluctant to ask her to move again. I also think that a lot of the witnesses are likely not to take a full 30 minutes. We've tried to just estimate out how long and to make sure that we're giving the committee and Representative Lindsay sufficient time. But I'm not sure that some of these witnesses will take 30 minutes. So I just wanted to share that with you and for the committee's consideration.
Yeah, that's important information. And I do appreciate that we had that order for a reason. And with that in mind, then we have the 8 a.m. or 8.30 block open. So I guess we could potentially offer that entire block or start at 8.30. We could be flexible there in that hour, I suppose. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And hopefully you heard my yes vote a few minutes ago. But secondarily, I wanted to say, I think if we're subpoenaing her to come, that we just say what time we wanted to be there. So if it's 830, we say 830.
Okay. Is there any other comment on time? Is there discussion on, oh, Representative Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think since she's so integral and important to this conversation, I just wonder if a half hour will be enough if we had her start at 830. I'm wondering if we might want to have her start a little bit earlier. Just in my mind, she's one of just a few people that are probably going to have more answers to our questions for clarity.
No, that's a good point. I had the same thought, and I'm going to do my very best to keep us on the schedule just out of respect to the witnesses and to the process as best we can. And so if there's no objection, let's say 8 a.m. We're here for the whole day anyway. And then I would like to hear input on, you know, and I know I expressed concern about reimbursement for travel, but it's not that big a deal to me. So I want to hear. It's just it seems unfair. in a way. I want to hear from you all. I know that we had previously expressed that we want witnesses in person unless there's some really extenuating circumstances. And luckily, almost every single person will be there in person. So as far as Representative Joseph goes, is there any desire to change that original intent of the committee to have people show up in person? If so, speak up now. If not, we'll have her be in person. All right. I don't see any objections there. So in person, 8 a.m. will be the subpoena request. The other question I had that there was a option for the person receiving subpoena to waive service, which would help facilitate, I guess, the we don't know if that's something she's going to do or not, do we? Ms. Love.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As of yesterday, Rep. Joseph has indicated that she would not be waiving service.
Okay. Does that change anything about our timing of getting the subpoena physically to her and our meeting schedule next week, just out of curiosity? Ms. Love.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't see that changing our schedule. We do know where she will be as of Tuesday evening. The rule requires her to be served within 48 hours before requesting her to be present. So we're still okay on that timeline, given that we know where she will be.
Okay. Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to note for the committee that I find it pretty ridiculous that the witness is one making a subpoena her to attend and is not waiving service. This is, I just want to put on the record that this is highly unusual for a witness to be this recalcitrant when they have key information. And I think it does a disservice to the process. And I
want that noted for the record. Thank you, Representative Woodrow. I tend to agree with you. which is why I expressed how this seems unfair to the other witnesses, but we'll do what we need to do because we're doing our best to be as thorough and complete as possible in respect to all those that are involved So I think that I wanted to I see Representative Sober before I go on Thank you for waving your hand Thank you Madam Chair And I never been able to figure out the little hand
icon thing. I'm not as smart as everyone else. I did also want to say that I fully concur with your assessment and Representative Woodrow's assessment here that if she's indicated that she would appear before the committee as a witness if we summons her and subpoena her, but she's not going to waive process. I mean, to me, that is a real slap in the face to what she had just indicated. And she's a sitting member of the House of Representatives. this is a charge that we have. It's part of our rules. It's part of the process and yeah, it should be noted on the record. So I, I just felt the same way.
Okay. I see that Ms. Chase, your hand is up.
Thank you, Madam chair. Given that this is a new process that we have not done before, And given that we have a couple of members of this committee who do engage in practice that probably requires some process serving at times, I just want to flag that we could use some guidance in terms of process servers to engage. I think that based on our information received from others in my office who have experience in this area as well, it would be more expeditious to use a process server rather than the sheriff's office i think there's typically some lag time using the sheriff's office so any guidance that members of the committee who have experience in this area could provide in terms of process servers that we could reach out to to get this accomplished we would appreciate that we can also reach out to the ag's
office. Excuse me. So yeah, I can't help you there. But that's another expense on the state. Is it not? That's correct. Representative Woodrow, your hand is still up or was up again?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Chase, I will forward you contact information for a processor.
Thank you, Representative Woodrow. Okay. I do see Representative Lindsay is on the call with us on the meeting with us. I did have one quick question, if it's not out of order to ask Representative Lindsey, just having to do with logistics and timing for next week. So if that's okay, Representative Lindsey, if you can hear me, I saw that you would like to bring forth some additional evidence during your opening presentation next week. We had scheduled 30 minutes for your 10-minute intro and presentation of your additional evidence. I wanted to
not only ask you if that's sufficient time, but also ask the committee in a kind of a separate
logistical discussion, if during Representative Lindsay's opening and presentation of any additional evidence, that perhaps we consider as a committee, maybe some clarifying questions during that time. But I think it's important for us to let Representative Lindsay go through her entire ability to question the witnesses that she's brought forward, for us to be able to question any of those people with follow-up questions, and then for the most part, leave a lot of our complete, you know, once we have the complete picture questions for Representative Lindsay at the end of day two, when we have the whole picture and her whole presentation. So number one, Representative Lindsay is 30 minutes enough time for you to give your 10 minutes as well as your potentially three additional pieces of evidence. Representative
Lindsay. Good morning. Thank you, committee. Yes, I think so. I mean, I haven't, haven't like gone through it and like, you know, read through anything to exactly time it, But I think that that would be fine. It's more just some additional context. So I think that extra 20 minutes on top of the 10 minute opening would be fine. And then any follow up questions you all have would be welcome.
OK, thank you. Thoughts on on how that could roll out for that day in the following day committee. Are you okay proceeding in that way? Let Representative Lindsay give us her statement and her additional evidence. Any clarifying questions could happen, but then we go ahead and respect as best we can the timing of the witnesses showing up and collect all that information over that day and a half and follow up with Representative Lindsay at the end of Tuesday. Does that sound okay to everybody? Speak now or forever hold your peace. I don't see any hands up. Okay. That just seemed like the most logical way to proceed. Okay. Is there any other business or things that I have forgotten, Ms. Chase?
Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could return to the subpoena just briefly. I just, We put together a form, as we indicated in the memorandum, that was sort of based on the subpoena form used in civil matters as well as using subpoena examples from the IEC, the Independent Ethics Commission, and the AG's office. And I just wanted to make sure from the members who engage in this type of practice that this form is sufficient for this committee's purposes.
Well, it's sufficient for me because I've never seen one before. So unless we hear from one of our attorneys on the committee that it's not sufficient, I would assume that it is. So thank you for that work and that information.
So then we will complete the subpoena and get it to you for your signature, Madam Chair. as soon as we can do that we will do that so that we can work with the process server to get this
served on her okay thank you for that work all right seeing no further business the committee is now adjourned thank you all very much thank you Thank you.