September 4, 2026 · Committee on Ethics · 7,829 words · 6 speakers · 104 segments
House Committee on Ethics will come to order. Ms. Berger, please call the roll.
Representative Ms. Garcia-Sander?
Present.
Mabry?
Here. Woodruff?
Here. Soper?
Here. Admature?
Here. Thank you. So we are here following on the meetings that we had to hear testimony on this case, and I wanted to just go back to why our committee was set up in the first place. We were tasked with addressing the complaint that Representative Marshall filed that alleged, and I quote from his complaint, that Representative Lindsey grossly mismanaged and frequently used the House Democratic petty cash fund for personal use in an unethical and potentially criminal manner with funds unaccounted for by appropriate receipts or any other basic and fundamental fiscal measure one would expect of a person in the exercise of fiduciary duties required by such a role in office. The categories in his complaint are, one, misappropriation of campaign funds slash money laundering, two, misappropriation or misallocation of caucus funds, three, personal use of the fund debit card. Throughout these hearings, we have completed a thorough review and discussion of all the evidence gathered, and at that point in time in May, the committee found that probable cause existed, that an ethical violation by Representative Lindsay may have occurred under a breach of fiduciary responsibility and negligence, but not at a criminal level. I and all the members of this committee have spent many hours reviewing the complaint, reviewing Representative Lindsay's initial response to the complaint, all of the evidence that was given to the committee initially, then followed by the two days of witness testimony, and then Representative Lindsay's attorney's statements, as well as her closing statement. During my processing of all this information, I just kept going back to the complaint language and the allegations from Representative Marshall, which I just outlined. Specifically, he had targeted a misappropriation of campaign funds regarding a $2,500 check from a campaign count and then reimbursement to a personal count. Following up on that, we certainly heard from witnesses and from Rep. Lindsay with an explanation for that. The second one had to do with the misallocation of funds in regards to the $6,358.68 reimbursement check that matched an invoice from the Marriott. And again, we saw written evidence and also testimony following that particular incident and then third, personal use of the fund debit card. Some of the ethical principles that were alleged in Rep Marshall complaint that were he says were violated were gross mismanagement of funds extreme negligence in handling of the fund misappropriation of funds or money laundering and breach of fiduciary duties. I wanted to just review that so that we're all still focused on the task at hand and kind of what brought us here in the first place. With my review over the last many weeks, I zeroed back in on what constitutes an ethical violation and I really wanted to have that clear in my mind and realize that ethical violations can occur when there's a breach of an established standard or some code of conduct in a way that may break the trust of who that that trust is between or could cause harm or do both, break trust and cause harm. So a breach of ethical standards can happen on purpose, but it also can happen due to poor practices or high-pressure situations. So these ethical violations are a large umbrella of possibilities, and I do believe that what we have observed and heard here fits the description of an ethical violation. Again, I keep going back to that first meeting we had where we were discussing kind of, is this an ethical concern that is considered under legislative duties from an elected official? Or is this, you know, a competence issue for a person serving in a position as a member of the legislature? Or is it potentially both? So that, I really appreciated that very first day where we had that discussion. And I think that we, even on that first day, we ended up seeing that being an elected representative within the House of Representatives and then being elected into a position of leadership within the legislature all constitutes what we are now considering legislative duties. That was our committee discussion that first day. Taking care of other legislators' money to conduct legislator business is part of the legislative process, is what I remember us kind of coming to a conclusion there. And then the impact of the misuse or mismanagement of that money falls within that misconduct of legislative duties, as we discussed back in early summer. and I think that those concerns that involve those duties can very well be looked at through this ethical lens that I just described. I wanted to just do that as an overview to start our discussion and then to hear from you all on how you've been processing all the information that has come our way and see where that takes us. So, committee, I'd like to just open it up for comments, you know, globally or specifically, whatever you'd like to share at this time.
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Didn't sit very well with the microphone. On August 13th and 14th, this committee did hear oral testimony in Representative Mandy Lindsay's ethics case. after we had previously determined that there was probable cause on May 11th for breach of fiduciary duty mismanagement negligence and misappropriation A legislator holds the public trust and managing funds of others is the utmost position of trust Representative Lindsey ran for and was elected Democratic caucus chair, a position that involved managing the caucus account or the petty funds. Only a legislator who is a Democrat may manage the House Democratic caucus account. Since only a legislator may manage a caucus account as part of their legislative duties, the obligation to fulfill those duties in an ethical and prudent manner apply. As we are the Ethics Committee and we are here looking at ethical violation, I mean, there's many types of ethical breaches. There could be conflicts of interest, bribery, corruption. There's also the misuse of public funds and abuse of power. Centering on those, whenever you have control over an account that involves the dollars of someone else that you've been entrusted to manage on their behalf, any mismanagement has to be looked at with a high level of scrutiny, determining certain ethical factors such as intent and knowledge, magnitude of personal gain, impact on the public trust and policy, transparency and disclosure, the frequency and pattern, and compliance with specific rules. As we reflect on the case before us and all the evidence, both written and oral testimony, it is pretty clear that there was an impact on the public trust. Anytime you have a legislator that is moving money from, for example, a campaign account to the House Democratic Petty Cash Fund to their personal account. And then once that has been brought to their attention, that legislator sends a check back to the House Petty Cash account. This on another level does have an element that looks like a type of money laundering. I'm not saying that's necessarily what it is. but in a world where you think about what is the logical way someone would act, if a check was an error, you would return that check to the account in which that account originated from. It doesn't take special classes or going to a school to determine how to manage an account. Same thing is true with the $6,300, and I'm rounding here. the fact that the check was backdated to be able to create the illusion of not knowing whether the house card had been charged or not, and then those funds were never returned. A logical and prudent person would have written a check back to the caucus account for $6,300, And if there were $6,300 worth of expenses to be reimbursed for, receipts could have been presented and a check could have been issued for that amount. Same thing is true with the hotel. That should have been reimbursed at a more timely manner rather than waiting until it was highlighted or brought to the member's attention. The fact that the member in question had not done anything to go out of her way to give the co-chair access to the account is also troubling. This leads back to the public trust and the impact because it goes to transparency and disclosure The reason why you have two signers on an account is so that what is before us should not happen You should have that second person that acts as the watchdog on the other one It not because of lack of trust, but a good system that has been set up both in this country and around the world for maintaining, whether it's club accounts or caucus accounts or banks, it's just level of fiduciary duty that has been accepted globally. Because of all this that I do see as a pattern, the frequency is troubling and the lack of remorse has also been something that I have been troubled with and believe that this committee should recommend something in accordance with our findings.
Any other members of the committee?
Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I largely want to echo points made by Representative Soper, but one thing that I want to highlight is the conversation that we've had over the course of the past several months around the $6,300 check. And in particular, what we heard about the timeline involving that check in testimony. One particular instance that I want to highlight is when we asked Speaker McCluskey about what the first conversation was regarding that check. She said that Representative Lindsay She mentioned in that first meeting that the $6,300 was taken from her account in April. In the April meeting, the speaker said that that's what her understanding from Rep. Lindsay about why there had been a reimbursement. But then in testimony and in the response to the complaint, the story lines up differently than what we heard from the speaker, what we heard from Rep. Joseph. I'm also troubled by the fact that receipts would add up exactly to $6,300 and change. That seems incredibly unlikely. and in conversations with Mr. Quinn, felt like there was backwards reasoning to get to reimbursement amounts. And as a result, I do not feel like anything that I heard in the hearing would make me change my mind on our original determination of a finding of probable cause. Thank you.
Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Thank you to all the witnesses who came and testified, some more willing than others. Thank you to Representative Lindsay and her counsel for taking us through this, I believe, first of its kind exercise. Thank you especially to OLLS who has given us invaluable guidance as we've attempted to exercise and execute our duties under our rules. I want to start with saying on the count of or charge or complaint of money laundering, I don't find that there was money laundering here. I think that Representative Marshall was confused about the sequencing of the payment of dues and reimbursement. I think what we had was a payment by Representative Lindsay of her caucus dues for a prior session from her campaign account. And then a new session, a new term rather, where caucus dues were due. she thought she had paid with individual funds that turned out not to be the case but she thought she had deposited a series of checks including a check that she had apparently written personally and then after a conversation with her spouse was reimbursing herself personally and that the timing, you know, from when she paid with her campaign funds, a prior session's dues, the prior term's dues, and then refunding the money to herself personally being several years later, I don't think qualifies as money laundering the timing. It's too far apart to evince any intent. I'm not going to say that it wasn't problematic. Representative Lindsay should have verified that she had actually paid the terms caucus dues before refunding them to herself. Once it was pointed out to her, I do believe that she refunded that money back in. So I want to be clear that I don't believe that there was money laundering. And I do think that the filer of the complaint testified that he had not kept abreast of these proceedings. And I think that his testimony was impassioned to the point as to events, in some respects, bias towards the accused. Having said that, I do think on the complaint of gross mismanagement that our finding of probable cause should be affirmed. I think it's unquestionable here that the caucus account was grossly mismanaged. There was no accounting, generally accepted accounting principles established. The testimony indicated that receipts were kept in a fairly haphazard way. We haven't seen all the receipts. The receipts that were provided, many of them are not itemized. So while we can tell the date of the payments out of the account and the amount and the recipient, we don't actually have an itemization in all instances of what the money was spent on. There's been a real lack of transparency. And to echo something that Representative Mabry said there been a lack of consistency in the testimony The story has changed several times I want to note that I do think that this committee has authority to consider this matter Certainly, if someone is traveling, let's say, abroad or in a different state and has a minor traffic infraction or something like that, that's totally unrelated to their legislative duties, You know, that might raise some type of question about whether or not our ethics rules apply. But, you know, I do think that Rep. Lindsay and perhaps our counselor read the law too narrowly. It contradicts precedent. Our rules are presumed to be constitutional. and I do think that the management of caucus dues derives from and is directly related to legislative duties. And so I do think that this committee has authority and that our rules as applied are constitutional. And I don't think that our rules would only be constitutional if we were considering expulsion. So I understand the legal argument being made and I disagree with it. As for the state's review, I think Rep. Lindsay's position places too much emphasis on it. Mr. Quinn, who I found to be a very credible witness, came and reiterated what he put in his report, which is that he's not an accountant. It was not an audit. He did not have complete receipts. The receipts he did have were incomplete. He was required to use other evidence like text messages and conversations with the speaker in order to fill gaps. His conclusion, in which he said that the caucus fund appeared to be used for its intended purpose, he backed away from it slightly at the hearing, said he wasn't as confident in it as he had been. after hearing some of the testimony. And when asked, he made quite clear that his finding was not tantamount or equivalent to a finding that the fund was managed properly. When Representative Lindsay was asked about Mr. Quinn's report, she said that she didn't actually agree with all of it. For one example, the $925 in three different checks that were classified as loans by Representative Lindsay was not counted as loans by Mr. Quinn. She also said that she hasn't taken the time to go through it all line by line and that perhaps someone would have the time to do that. And with all due respect to Representative Lindsay, I think that burden was on her and her counsel, and they should have gone through it line by line in preparation for the hearing. She acknowledged in her testimony that it's important for us as colleagues to talk with each other and to communicate with each other, and that when there's problems, we need to sit down and work it out. But when I asked if she had met with Representative Joseph, who I would know was champing at the bit to get to the bottom of this and to meet with her, she said no, she hadn't. And when I asked why, she said she didn't want anything to do with her. I am sympathetic to the fact that there was no written job description, that there was no training that prior caucus chairs might have also done a poor job that her first caucus co took an out out approach to this All of that is real. At the same time, when Representative Lindsay became overwhelmed, and I paraphrase, I believe she said at one point she was a hot mess, she didn't tell leadership. She didn't ask for help. Someone who acknowledges that it's important for colleagues to talk to each other should have gone to leadership, disclosed what was happening, and asked for help. I think that Representative Lindsay's answer to the complaint only added to the confusion. For example, it implies that she wanted to pay her dues with campaign funds, and that's why she had refunded the money to herself personally. But what she omits is that she didn't actually pay the caucus dues from her campaign funds or from any other source. And this is at a time when she acknowledges that the fund was lacking in money and that she was loaning other funds to the caucus dues account, the petty cash fund. in some she used such poor bookkeeping that to this very day I don't think anyone on this committee could state with confidence who owes who what and where the money actually went I think on the hotel reimbursement my read of the testimony is that she owed money to her aide in the amount of several thousand dollars and paid her aid after deciding to keep the hotel reimbursement check, which, as Representative Soper pointed out, appears to have been backdated. All of this leaves me very sad. I consider Rep. Lindsay, like I said during an earlier hearing, one of the nicest people in the building. Representatives, Senator, Governor, staff, you're all wonderful people. Representative Lindsay is one of the nicest. This is a really hard building, but that doesn't excuse what happened. What I'd like to know from OLS is what our options are from here. If we were to recommend censure, for example, is that something that needs to be voted on by the full House? Would new House members, because we're not in session, would new House members vote on that in January? Would they be able to even exercise that authority, given that she'll be out of office? If we were to do something short of a censure, like a reprimand, does the House need to vote on that? What are our options at this point? That's where I'm at right now, and those are my questions.
Thank you, Representative Boudreaux. Representative Garcia-Sander? Thank you, Madam Chair. And I echo what my colleagues have already stated and from the non-lawyer here on the panel. You know, I just I see that just overall just gross mismanagement of money of the caucus. moving money between accounts covering shortfalls not working with the caucus co those just all led to a really bad storm of events And to me as a member of the body but also a member of the public I would see that as breaking trust with colleagues breaking trust with the public, breaking trust as far as management of dollars, whether that's caucus dollars or public dollars. And I think that affects everybody in the body. It affects us as an institution. And so I know that OLLS provided some potential options for us, and I think they'll go over that. But I do believe that there needs to be a strong message, a strong consequence for the breaking of trust with colleagues and with the public when it comes to management of the monies that we are entrusted. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Chair Ruelas. Thank you for that. I wanted to just circle back before we move forward to thank you all very much for your thoughtful comments. It's also, I am also in agreement that it is my conclusion that the trust in the management of these caucus funds was unfortunately damaged by Representative Lindsey's inability to proper handle the funds budget and the accounting processes. Um, it's apparent that, you know, at times she was in over her head and did not manage the income and expenses properly. Also apparent that there were multiple opportunities to recognize the problem, um, and multiple avenues to obtain the help to address these problems, um, that the fund was facing and those avenues were not taken. Um, it was especially apparent to me in the $6,300 check, the timing, the reasoning, the documentation provided for that entire incident was key to raising inquiry from others and seeding doubt in our colleagues that many of the witnesses reflected upon and shared with us. The writing of checks to herself without consultation, as Representative Soper alluded to having a co-caucus chair and proceeding with writing checks to yourself without any check-in or consultation with a co-chair or anyone else, even if it was done in the up and up, it breaks trust when that happens. And that unilateral decision-making, to me, not only breaks or erodes trust, but that falls under this ethical concern that we're here to examine. the help with the bank account when it had a low balance when it was known that the balance was low and Representative Lindsay's desire to fulfill her duty in her own words was so strong she wanted to make sure we were fed make sure we were taken care of and all of us so much appreciate that But I think it did overtake thoughts of the other side of that, creating and following an actual budget or by seeking help when that was needed. Yeah. knowing that none of us would have ever expected her to use her own funds to kind of fill in the holes. I don't agree with Representative Marshall's allegation that the use of the fund was used in a potentially criminal manner. I see no evidence of that. So I agree with Representative Woodrow on his assessment there. I don't think there was ever any criminal intent in this situation. I do just see, as you all have reiterated, just a disorganized, unstructured handling of the fund. The overuse of personal funds to cover caucus's expenses or not, depending on the situation, was never an expectation. There was no clear bookkeeping. And as we've reviewed over the summer, what is there is very difficult to follow. and all this led to a break in the trust of the duty given to her by our caucus. This, as you said, Representative Woodrow, this pains me personally. I see I also have a deep fondness for Representative Lindsay and respect her in her passion to be a representative and to represent her constituents and to help all of us. And it makes what we are tasked to do here very hard. And I know that this must be very hard for Representative Lindsay as well to experience. But I also have come to the conclusion, as I stated before, of our original finding of probable cause. I have reviewed the memo that OLLS provided to us after our last meeting, but I think it would be worthwhile to go through that in our public meeting here today so that we're very clear on at least what House Rule 49 says, but also what it doesn't say and what our options may be. So under the rule, I'll just go through this so we can dig into any questions. The committee may, number one, we can dismiss the complaint against Representative Lindsay, which I'm hearing from committee members that that's not something that we are interested in pursuing at this time. Number two, we can find action. We can find some action should be taken. So those are kind of the two big buckets. And so under actions that could be taken, it's important to realize that what's listed in House Rule 49 is a non-exhaustive list of permissible recommendations, meaning we can fill in some of the blanks that aren't written in rule. but what's written there are reprimand, censure, or expulsion. Again, non-exhaustive. We have the ability and the authority to fill in the blanks with that. Representative Woodrow, I think it was that asked, maybe it was Mabry, now I've lost. Anyway about those things that require by rule a full House vote either by majority vote or two vote is there you know there was a question about that considering you know the situation that we in with Representative Lindsay not coming back for the 27 session and then what's not written down that we could also consider. So I'll turn it over to you all, and then committee, please ask questions as they come up.
Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Christy Chase, Office of Legislative Legal Services, and thank you for your questions. As you noted, Madam Chair, under the rule, there is a non-exhaustive list of actions that the committee could recommend. Reprimand, censure, and expulsion are the ones listed. And the rule then further states what the vote of the body would need to be. So those are actions, as described in the rule, that the body would need to take. And in this situation, unless, God forbid, you have a special session between now and the regular convening session in 2027, there's no opportunity for the body to take action while Representative Lindsay is a member of the General Assembly. We have one example of the body taking action against a former member, and that was back in the special session in 2025 where the body adopted a resolution condemning the behavior of a former member. So that is something that if you wanted to recommend that the body take action, the soonest that could happen would be in the 2027 legislative session. The body could consider a resolution condemning the behavior of a former member, that being Representative Lindsay. Alternatively, the committee could make recommendations for the speaker to take action. The speaker has, in prior circumstances, taken action to formally reprimand a member. So reprimand is a term that is a type of remedy that can be used by the body and also has been used by the speaker under her authority as the presiding officer of the body. Generally, other actions that could be taken could be done, things that you recommend that the speaker do, as outlined in the memorandum. formal admonition, which is what this committee in a prior matter had recommended the speaker take action in that manner as well. Short of that, I mean, the circumstances make it difficult if the committee wants to make recommendations for certain actions. The body is limited in what actions it would be able to take. so to be clear just to reiterate even though it lists reprimand and and states that that requires a simple majority vote of the house there is that other reprimand situation that is under the speaker's purview to be able to do that because we have past history of of that happening and that's not, that doesn't necessarily fall under this particular, the vote reprimand. It is just separate from that. I had a question about, you know,
the report of this committee going to leadership. The fact that this complaint was reviewed by the Speaker Majority Leader and Minority Leader and they the three of them made the decision to forward it to this committee Are they considered all three of them considered leadership that the report goes back to, and is it the three of them that have the ability to do any, or is it solely on the speaker because the Democrats are in the majority and she's the Speaker of the House and this was a majority caucus issue. I'm just curious about that because they, the three of them, triggered the whole committee process. So can you help me with that? I don't know if anybody else had that question.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, Christy Chase, Legislative Legal Services. Based on past practices, it would be our recommendation that any final report that the committee issues would go to the speaker. Under the rule, a complaint is filed with the speaker, and then the speaker is directed to confer with the minority and majority leader to determine whether or not the complaint lacks merit or if they can't find that it lacks merit, and then it gets referred to a committee. All prior ethics committees of the House and of the Senate, their final report is directed to the presiding officer of the body. When you're in session, that goes to the presiding officer, and then it gets read. It's read as a committee report, read across the desk, and printed in the journal. In this circumstance, since you're not in session, it would not be printed in the journal. Prior ethics committees in 2024, the Senate Ethics Committee met during the summer, issued a report and recommendations to the president of the Senate, and then that final report is posted still on the Senate Ethics Committee website. So that would be probably the outcome in this situation as well. But our recommendation is that your report go to the Speaker on behalf of the House as the presiding officer of the House.
Thank you for that. That was for those that may be listening. That was an important point because so often it says, you know, to the House of Representatives. but the Speaker, really, as the presiding officer of the entire House, can accept that role as the House of Representatives. And so I know we had that question on a previous case, and so I just wanted to make that crystal clear that that one person can represent the whole House. Further questions for our OLLS team?
Representative Sober. Thank you, Madam Chair. On the question of printing in the journal, I know that there's things that happen outside of the legislative session that then do get printed in the journal when a new session begins, such as a member resigning. I'm trying to think of other things. But would something like that ever happen from a report from an ethics committee?
Ms. Chase? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Soper, for the question. We don't have any knowledge of that happening with a prior ethics committee. We'd have to check with the chief clerk to see if there are other things that occur outside of session that do get printed in the journal. I'm not certain that a member resigning that notice gets printed in the journal, but I haven't specifically looked for that, and I can't answer that question off the top of my head. The journal is typically the actions that occur during the legislative session of the General Assembly of each chamber.
Do you have another question?
All right, I have another question. I curious to know if a person that has been elected by a caucus within the General Assembly for this example of course it the House Democratic Caucus if they've been elected by the House Caucus, does leadership or the Speaker have the authority to remove that person who was elected by the caucus, or do they not have that authority?
Ms. Chase, if that was clear. It's clear. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we're not privy to any rules of proceedings of the caucuses, but it seems to us that if a member is elected by a certain body to a position, then that body would need to be the one that removes that member. Does it mean you couldn't recommend that the speaker encourage, request ask that the member resign from that position but it doesn't seem that the speaker would have the authority to remove a person that is elected by another body.
Thank you for that.
Clarity, Representative Mabry. Thank you Madam Chair. Ms. Chase just mentioned what I think would be potentially an appropriate thing for us to recommend which is we could recommend that the speaker request that Representative Lindsay resigned from the position of caucus chair like in a public letter or something like that and I feel like that's a way for us to be on the record saying that that's what we think is an appropriate remedy but but recognizing that it might not be within our scope of power or the speakers alone.
I hear that. And, you know, knowing that that would be potentially a finding of the committee might add a little weight to that request is what I'm hearing.
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I agree with Representative Mapri. but kind of along those same lines does a speaker have a power to not assign a member to a committee does a member you know have the right to a physical office or a leadership position on a committee can all those be taken away or are those things that are protected miss chase
Thank you, Madam Chair. As to positions on committee and leadership positions on committee, I'll answer that question first. As the appointing authority for positions on committees, the speaker does have the authority to remove or modify any appointments to committees. Similarly, with regard to but not as a result of a complaint in a Senate ethics matter, before there was a complaint filed and actually after the complaint was filed, a member of the Senate was removed as chair of a committee and then after the complaint was filed was removed from all committees. So there is precedent for that, at least in the Senate. in terms of holding an office, a physical office in the building. You might view that as the office is, every member is elected to a position in the body by their district, by their constituents in their district. Their district constituents need to have a way to get their member, while that member is still a member of the body. So I'm not sure that there's the authority to remove a person from their office. There was, again, in that same Senate situation, when the Senate and the House still had access to offices in 1525 Sherman Street, the member's office was moved from the Capitol to 1525 Sherman Street. But you don't have that option anymore to move a member from one office in the building to a different building, because there are no more spaces available for members of the body at this time. Another circumstance that occurred in that prior situation was the member's desk in the chamber was moved from, I think they had a position closer to the well and they were moved to the back row. Again, in this circumstance when the House isn't going to be convening before the term there's not much consequence in that if you're trying to have a consequence. Hopefully that answers your questions.
I have another question about leadership. Knowing that it's our understanding, I think, that leadership or the speaker has control over the caucus fund at this time and um representative joseph does as well um maybe i'm not 100 clear on that but does um i know that representative lindsey was had to turn over the checkbook and the debit card so access was um shut down there. Do they have, I guess it's in their hands, any, oops, I'll stop.
Okay. Great. Thank you.
They have control over the fund, and so it's up to them to decide on any further reconciliation or reimbursement or truing up of the whole account.
Do we have any authority to make suggestions on that as far as reimbursements or not. Ms. Chase.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I answer that question, I need to clarify a response that I made about committee appointments. In the House, the rules require that every member serve on at least one committee. So the limitation on the speaker removing a member from committees, the member would still have to be on one committee. Sorry for that misstatement. In terms of making any recommendations related to the fund we have several prior ethics committees that have made recommendations that seem to be stemming from the alleged behavior that was the subject of the complaint but then separately making a recommendation about something else So for example in 2006 I believe it was a different circumstance Of course the committee didn find probable cause They recognized, though, that the member's behavior was maybe not appropriate, but they didn't find probable cause of a violation. But then they made recommendations about the per, it had to do with per diem claims, and they made recommendations related to clarifying the per diems, clarifying when it's appropriate to make a per diem claim, that sort of thing. Another instance where a prior ethics committee, again, did not find probable cause of an ethics violation but wanted further clarification and provided recommendations that members seeking travel reimbursement seek guidance before they make those claims. So there are examples of prior committees making recommendations that weren't specifically related to recommending action against a member, but were things that you've discovered during your investigation that highlight issues or areas of concern that you might want to recommend. It doesn't mean that the bodies or the individuals that you make those recommendations to are obligated to take action, but a committee of five members making a recommendation in a final report would be a strong urging for them to do something with regard to the fund. I mean, if you want, I don't know the status of the caucus having adopted procedures for the management of the fund or other things that you think this process has highlighted for you or certainly appropriate things for you to consider including
in your report. Yeah, thank you for that. I was going to bring that up because I think that this committee should in its report, similar to what Mr. Quinn recommended in his report,
some of those things should also come from this committee that we recommend to House leadership that, again, our purpose is to prevent this from happening again and restore trust in the process. So some of the things that were in that report were to have a formal approval workflow system for reimbursements, direct spending, the cost of things with some kind of approval process in place from someone else, an expense log with dates, vendors, purpose, receipts, approval status, a budget created and updated quarterly to be shared with the caucus to review, a system for collecting the dues, follow up with some way to follow up with members who are delinquent and some kind of consequences or system in place to help non-paying members, monthly bank account reconciliation, and a written and approved plan for items that are purchased for the caucus, which can be used in the future with some kind of inventory and knowledge of where those items are to be stored. I just wanted to put those on the record, too, because I think that's through the process we've learned that we need that. Future caucus chairs need that. Future leadership folks need that. And we're all seeing that that should have been in place years ago. And I know that even our current caucus chairs wish that had been in place long ago.
So further questions, comments, direction from committee? I made a couple of notes here that we have discussed that perhaps we could potentially recommend the speaker request from our committee that Representative Lindsay resign from being caucus co for the rest of her term We also discussed and found out that there is the ability for the speaker to remove Representative Lindsay from committee assignments except for one. so whatever leadership the speaker would consider in that regard is up to her. Are those at least those two things? Is there anything else that I'd like to hear folks' comments and at least those potential outcomes here? Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm agreeable to those and would make a motion at the appropriate time.
Seeing no further comment, then, Representative Soper, would you address the first – I think we should do these separately. Madam Chair. Oh, yes, Ms. Chase.
Thank you. Given that Rule 49F gives the committee the option to dismiss or the option to determine that you need to take action, you might consider first making a motion that you're deciding under 49F to take action to make recommendations and then do separate motions on your recommendations. Thank you.
You got that, Representative Soper?
All right.
I'll entertain a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the committee finds under Rule 49F to take action in this matter.
Seconded by Representative Woodrow.
Ms. Berger, please call the roll. Representative Scorcia-Sander?
Yes.
Maybury?
Yes.
Woodrow?
Yes.
Soper?
Yes.
Madam Chair?
Yes, and that passes unanimously. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the committee recommend a Stern letter of recommend be issued to Representative Lindsay and that she be removed from all of her committee and leadership assignments except one committee assignment per the House rules. And further, that Representative Lindsay be requested to resign from the position of Democratic Caucus co-chair. I think that was clear enough.
I second that. Seconded by Representative Garcia-Sander.
Ms. Berger, please, did you want to say something? Okay, Ms. Berger, please call the roll. Representative Garcia-Sander?
Yes.
Mabry?
Yes.
Woodrow?
Yes.
Soper?
Yes.
Madam Chair?
Yes. And thank you for that. Representative Soper?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I further move that the committee also include within our report that House leadership develop rules for best practices for the handling of both caucuses financial matters.
Any further comment?
Ms. Berger, please call the roll. Representatives Garcia-Sander?
Yes.
Mabry?
Yes.
Woodrow?
Yes.
Sober Yes Added chair Yes On that last motion will the record just reflect some of the things our report that I outlined
or do we need to be any more specific than that, or just leave it up to leadership? They will hear the list of things that I mentioned on the record, but I'm just curious, do we as a committee in our report need to include those? Ms. Chase.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Your motion was pretty broad and open and not specific about the sorts of things that you want them to do specifically. If you want to be more specific, you should have a more specific motion on that point.
All right. I want to be more specific. So you'll see one through six there. I would like a motion to include those, and then with a trailer, anything else that they see fit to add for the management of these funds. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As a more specific motion, I move that within the developing of rules for the management of the two caucuses' funds, that it include a formal approval of workflow systems for reimbursement, direct spending, costs with leadership approval if needed, two, expense logs with dates, vendors, purpose, receipts, and approval status, three, a budget created and updated quarterly as a best practice and available for anyone in the caucus to review, four, a system for collecting dues, follow-up with members who are delinquent and consequences for non-paying members. Five, a monthly bank account reconciliation. And six, a written and approval plan for items purchased for the caucus, which can be used in the future, and an inventory and storage plan for those items.
Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Representative Mabry.
Ms. Berger, please call the roll. Representative Garcia-Sander.
Yes.
Mabry?
Yes.
Woodrow?
Yes.
Silver?
Yes.
Madam Chair.
Yes. That also passes unanimously. Ms. Chase, is there any further information that OLLS needs from us or any other action items that we need to follow up on?
Ms. Chase. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would recommend that the committee deputize one or two of you to work with us on developing the final report. In the Senate hearing in 2024, they had a specific motion authorizing the chair and vice chair or their designees to draft the final report and allow the committee members opportunity to provide input before making it final and then submitting it to the presiding officer. So you might consider doing something of that nature, and then we, of course, would work with designees on preparing a draft report and circulating it.
I think we should pick the two people that are not going to be here next year.
Representative Woodrow. Oh, I move to deputize the chair and vice chair.
Is there a second? I guess we're voting on this. yeah I'd rather withdraw
Ms. Berger please call the roll on that motion Representative Garcia
No.
Nabry?
Yes.
Woodrow?
Yes.
SOPR?
Yes.
Madam Chair.
Yes. That passes four to one. Okay, so Representative SOPR and myself will be available to help OLS and also review the final report before sending it on its way. Any further comments? I want to make one last comment. I really do want to thank all the staff. You have been amazing in helping us. We know this has been a journey that no other General Assembly has had to experience as far as going to this level So thank you so much for your help and your memos and research I also want to thank these committee members for taking this task so seriously and for giving it the time and attention that it deserved. I think your actions and inquiry and questions have been really helpful. They've helped me a lot, so I want to thank you. I also want to thank all the people who willingly came to testify under oath to help further inform the committee on this issue. We really do appreciate your time and willingness. I know it wasn't an easy task for any of us going through this procedure, but really do appreciate that everyone gave it the weight that it deserved. And thank you again. And with that, this committee is adjourned.