Transcript Highlights:

• The ethical violations occurred.
• During the time that’s relevant to these ethical violations or these allegations of ethical violations
• ethical alarm bells?
• Violating any ethical rules or triggering any ethical alarm bells? Objection.
• was ethical or unethical.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• people that has filed an ethics people that has filed an ethics complaint.<00:07:36.480> He'd
• response to the other ethics complaint? response to the other ethics complaint?
• >> Um, the way that the ethics work is we receive those ethics complaint.
• >> What you're going to see is the ethics committee is going to do their work.
• That is not just because of the tie; that is a structure of the ethics committee.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• ethical conduct. ethical conduct.
• ethical standards. ethical standards.
• ethics.
• ethics committee trial. ethics committee trial.
• ethical conduct. ethical conduct.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• even read the ethics complaint.
• even read the ethics complaint.
• even read the ethics complaint.
• ethics complaint is. ethics complaint is.
• there's also a pending ethics complaint. there's also a pending ethics complaint.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a violation of ethical conduct has a violation of ethical conduct has occurred.<00:06:03.120> We
• <00:21:10.799> Thank on ethical conduct. Thank you. Thank on ethical conduct. Thank you.
• were violated and the code of ethics were violated and the code of ethics were<00:30:16.399>
• rule Senate ethic ethics rules in rule Senate ethic ethics rules in rule 56.4.<00:59:35.200> And
• 1.30 of the code of ethics. 1.30 of the code of ethics.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 869 ensures the Ethics Commission resolves formal complaints in a timely, fair manner.
• SB1964 modernizes Texas' AI governance by establishing clear definitions, ethical standards, and oversight

Bills: SB15, SB646, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1610, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB2972, SB973, SB865, SB506, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB974, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB1302, SB519, SB2807, SB13, SB7, SB1718, SB1567, SB1233, SB413, SB2177, SB30, SB2024, SJR1, SCR27, SB2018, SB1580, SB2121, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1596, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SCR9, SB204, SB437, SB568, SB612, SB672, SB710, SB823, SB876, SB904, SB905, SB968, SB1084, SB1207, SB1230, SB1313, SB1504, SB1790, SB2232, SB2366, SB2367, SB2398, SB2515, SB2520, SB2589, SB2786, SB2790, SB3048, SB3050, SB3052, SB3053, SB3056, SB3029, SCR3, SCR18, SCR30, HCR146, HCR148, HCR149, HCR153, HCR155, HCR157, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB2712, HB171, HB3153, HB143, HB2688, HB3464, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB2, HB1522, HB24, HB 1237, HB2637, HB3126, HB3233, HB4310, HB3487, HCR9, HB5331, HB1397, HB163, HB3250, HB3071, HB3463, HB5033, HB35, HB3824, HB216, HB4226, HB3512, HB18, HB5154, HB 103, HB851, HB647, HB4520, HB3016, HB2313, HB2818, HB2851, HB4486, HB4264, HB1500, HB5081, HB2974, HB2080, HB4384, HB5659, HB493, HB4903, HB2516, HB4488, HB4530, HB3689, HB145, HB43, HB5247, HB2221, HB5671, HB700, HB3711, HB 120, SB17, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB21, SB2778, SB379

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Transcript Highlights:

• their capacity as our voice on ethics their capacity as our voice on ethics they<00:15:51.800>
• <00:16:15.360> says the Senate subcommittee on ethics says the Senate subcommittee on ethics
• Our temporary rules—yes, it has an ethics process. It does not apply to expulsion.
• President, the ethics complaint in this matter was filed nearly a year ago.
• our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics process<00:35:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate convened under call, established a quorum, and adopted the committee reports. It then moved through second reading of Senate File 334 and first readings/referrals of Senate Files 645, 684, and 700, with SF 645 sent to State and Local Government and SFs 684 and 700 sent to Health and Human Services. The chamber also approved a motion to withdraw Senate File 567 from State and Local Government and re-refer it to Elections. The Senate adopted Senate Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 6, both recognizing Senate employees for years of dedicated service, including a specific recognition of David Jorgenson. The most significant floor action was a motion by Senator Rasmusson to expel Senator Nicole Mitchell and declare her seat vacant. Senator Rasmusson argued that Mitchell’s pending felony burglary case and delay of her trial justified expulsion; Senator Frentz opposed the motion, arguing the Senate should wait for the criminal process and that due process requirements had not been met. After a point of order and appeal, the President ruled the Frentz point of order well taken, and the Senate upheld that ruling by a 33-33 vote. The meeting also included several recesses and procedural calls of the Senate while the expulsion issue was debated. During announcements, members noted committee schedule changes, including cancellations or postponements for Energy and Jobs, and meetings for Judiciary, Policy, and Human Services. The Senate then adjourned until Thursday, January 30th at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is the word ethical standards, what does it say? Ethical standards? Is that defined in code?
• I think we can set forth some ethical standards.
• I think we can set forth some ethical standards.
• Would you be amenable to changing ethical standards to code of judicial conduct?
• I would just replace ethical standards with judicial conduct. In both places. Yes.

Bills: HB1455

Keywords: tribal consultation, Indian Affairs Commission, tribal governments, tribal sovereignty, state-tribal relations, Native American, tribal nations, consultation requirement, legislative process, jurisdiction, sovereignty, North Dakota tribes, government-to-government consultation, tribal chairpersons, 908, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first heard House Bill 1455, which would require the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission to review introduced legislation for tribal implications and conduct consultation with affected tribes. Rep. Collette Brown said the bill was intended to formalize and strengthen tribal consultation, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe representative Ross Bell testified in support. Brad Hawk, executive director of the Indian Affairs Commission, testified neutrally, saying the office already does much of this work but that the bill would add structure; several senators raised concerns about duplication, possible future staffing costs, and whether the bill was necessary. The committee amended the bill to replace “each measure” with “all legislation,” then passed a do-not-pass recommendation on HB 1455 by recorded vote, with Sen. Luick designated as carrier. The committee then took up House Bill 1032, dealing with municipal courts, appeals, and judge qualifications. Legislative Council and court staff walked through proposed amendments, including making municipal courts courts of record on a delayed effective date, clarifying appeal procedures, and adding standards for municipal judges. Members discussed whether to use the term “ethical standards” or “judicial conduct”; after questions about definitions and enforcement, the committee settled on replacing the language with “judicial conduct” in the amended bill. The committee adopted the amendments and then passed HB 1032 as amended on a do-pass vote, with Sen. Cory to carry. Later, the committee heard House Bill 1263, which would make it easier for people with criminal records to seek sealing after a denial by allowing an appeal and reducing the waiting period for a new petition from three years to one year. Rep. Nels Christensen, Christopher Davis, Travis Fink, and Brad Peterson all supported the bill’s goal of giving people a better path to rehabilitation and employment. The main point of disagreement was whether to keep the statutory presumption that the benefit to the petitioner must outweigh the presumption of openness of criminal records; several witnesses urged removing that language, while others said it was part of the compromise that created the current law. The committee closed the hearing without taking final action and said it would review the House discussion before deciding later.

Transcript Highlights:

• This afternoon, this is the Committee on Ethics and Elections of the Florida Senate.
• The first is a presentation to the committee by the Commission on Ethics.
• I was appointed by the governor this summer to serve on the Commission on Ethics.
• After multiple meetings, the Commission on Ethics has four proposals for your consideration.
• come before the Commission on Ethics.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met with a quorum present and heard a presentation from the Florida Commission on Ethics on several proposed legislative changes. The commission asked for changes to the Whistleblower Act to better cover ethics complaints, a public records exemption for commissioners’ and staff members’ sensitive personal information, an expanded gift-disclosure family definition to include foster relationships, and a first-time waiver of fines for late financial disclosure filers. Staff also requested technical fixes, including treating a timely postmarked appeal as filed on time, clarifying Form 6 filing requirements for appointees to elected seats, extending ethics-training requirements to municipal appointees filling unexpired terms, and clarifying where Form 10 gift disclosures are filed. Commission staff reported high electronic filing compliance rates, the rollout of automated fines, and an average of 92 days for completed preliminary investigations in 2025. They also updated the committee on two federal court challenges involving the in-office lobbying ban and the Form 6 requirement for elected municipal officers. The committee then heard from Secretary of State Cord Byrd, who outlined preparations for the 2026 election cycle and several policy proposals. He discussed work with new supervisors of elections, ongoing election-crimes enforcement, cooperation with federal agencies on citizenship verification, and data-sharing agreements with other states. Byrd also proposed a statewide pre-certification audit system with grants for smaller counties, a more streamlined process for checking voter citizenship status after registration, and a modernization fix for voter records affected by randomized driver’s license numbers. Members asked about special elections, election-crimes investigations, returning-citizen voting determinations, chain-of-custody procedures, and interstate data-sharing agreements. Byrd said special election timing is controlled by the governor, the elections-crimes office investigates but does not arrest, returning-citizen applications are resolved within 90 days, and he is confident in current chain-of-custody practices. The committee also considered gubernatorial nominations. By unanimous vote, members approved a block of nominees, then separately took up Joshua Kellum’s nomination to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The committee heard sworn public testimony from Robin Blevins, who urged rejection of Kellum’s appointment and criticized his background and past involvement in FWC-related advocacy. After brief discussion, the committee voted unanimously to approve Kellum’s nomination as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• committee and has stepped down as chair of the subcommittee on ethical conduct.
• Any member can ask the subcommittee on ethics to request an advisory opinion.
• chair of the subcommittee on ethical chair of the subcommittee on ethical conduct.<00:10:32.640>
• <00:12:13.680> I on ethics so that work can proceed.
• I on ethics so that work can proceed.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and this ethics committee in particular. and this ethics committee in particular.
• <00:03:25.720> Issues available online entitled Ethical Issues available online entitled Ethical
• level of ethical misconduct. level of ethical misconduct.
• one of the most consequential ethical one of the most consequential ethical developments developments
• None of these incidents triggered ethics None of these incidents triggered ethics complaints<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• ethics panel that we have here at the Minnesota State Senate, right?
• due process needs to have a full ethics due process needs to have a full ethics hearing<00:05:15.960

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The meeting centered on a motion to expel Senator Nicole Mitchell from the Minnesota Senate while her criminal case remains pending. Republican speakers argued that Mitchell’s trial delays and continued service were undermining the Senate’s integrity, distracting from legislative work, and denying her constituents full representation because she is not serving on committees or participating in caucus. They said the motion was intended to uphold accountability, justice for the alleged victim, and the institution’s standards of conduct. DFL leaders and other defenders of Mitchell argued that she has not been convicted, is entitled to due process, and remains the duly elected representative of Senate District 47. They said Senate rules, Mason’s Rules, and custom require ethics proceedings to be completed before expulsion, and that the Senate should not act on her criminal case. They also emphasized that the Senate’s priority should be passing a budget and continuing to work under the chamber’s power-sharing agreement. The expulsion effort did not succeed. After debate and a procedural vote, Senate Democrats voted to keep Mitchell in the Senate, and leaders said the matter would remain unresolved until her court and ethics proceedings move forward. Republicans indicated they may continue to raise the issue, while DFL leaders said they would focus on governing and expected the chamber to reorganize if control changes after the upcoming election.

Transcript Highlights:

• sure if the committee the ethics sure if the committee the ethics committee<00:11:38.000> would
• the um the work of the ethics committee. the um the work of the ethics committee.
• but isn't that also a serious ethical but isn't that also a serious ethical concern?
• <00:56:19.280> Like review by the ethics committee? Like review by the ethics committee?
• gt; Um the ethics committee >> Um the ethics committee is<00:59:12.319> not<00:59:12.559

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• state ethics commission, Robert Harris. state ethics commission, Robert Harris.
• Uh the ethics commission. My committee. Uh the ethics commission.
• I'm happy that the uh ethic the bill.
• I'm happy that the uh ethic the state<00:18:11.679> ethics<00:18:12.080> commission<00:
• state ethics commission um supports it. state ethics commission um supports it.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 5 and SB 1545. SB 5 drew opposition from the Department of the Attorney General, which said the bill conflicted with two sections of the state constitution. A member of the public also opposed SB 5, arguing that representatives should be elected by the people and urging the committee not to pass the measure. After discussion, the committee deferred SB 5, citing the deputy attorney general’s view that it was unconstitutional. The committee then heard SB 1545, which concerns nepotism rules and good-cause exceptions. The State Ethics Commission testified in support, saying the bill would create a clearer, more transparent central process for good-cause exceptions and noting that several exceptions had already been publicly filed. A public testifier also supported the bill but questioned why the judiciary appeared to be excluded from its coverage. After a brief recess, the committee decided to amend SB 1545 by striking the exemption for the legislature and judiciary and changing the effective date to the House defective date. The committee then voted to pass SB 1545 with amendments. The chair, vice chair, and Representatives Ichiyama and Morikawa voted aye; Representative Matsumoto was excused, and the recommendation was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections will now come to order.
• We'll take up tab 2, Senate Bill 348 on ethics by Senator Gaetz. Senator Gaetz, you're right.
• of Ethics, fines that remain unpaid and delinquent.
• Carrie Stillman, I'm here on behalf of the Florida Commission on Ethics.
• I'm here on behalf of the Florida Commission on Ethics.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met with a quorum present and took up two bills. First, it heard SB 72 by Senator Berman, which would allow candidates to use campaign funds for dependent child care expenses incurred while actively campaigning, with limits to prevent use for general family living costs and a requirement to keep records for at least three years. The League of Women Voters appeared in support, and Senator Rouson joked about whether the bill should also cover dependent pets. The bill was reported favorably by committee vote. The committee then considered SB 348 by Chair Gaetz, dealing with ethics violations related to falsely claiming military rank or honors for material gain and with collection of delinquent ethics fines. Gaetz explained that the bill would make such false claims a violation of the Florida Code of Ethics and authorize penalties including censure, fines, and possible removal recommendations; it would also allow public employers to withhold pay to satisfy unpaid ethics penalties. Senator Bradley asked for clarification that “material gain” includes political and professional benefits, not just money, and the chair confirmed that it does. An amendment defining delinquent penalties as unpaid 90 days after imposition was adopted, and the Florida Commission on Ethics spoke in support of the bill’s salary-withholding provisions and expanded jurisdiction. Senator Collins, a veteran, strongly supported the anti-stolen-valor section. The committee then reported CS for SB 348 favorably and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are also questions of ethical use and how this incorrect information to our users.
• AI literacy, critical engagement, and empowered ethics.
• A number of you have talked about the ethical use of AI.
• What counts as ethical use?
• And we know the ethical use of these technologies is paramount and important.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Higher Education and the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an oversight hearing on the California State University’s AI-empowered initiative, including the systemwide rollout of ChatGPT EDU and broader AI integration across CSU campuses. Opening remarks emphasized both the promise of AI for student success, workforce preparation, and access, and the need to address risks such as bias, privacy, misinformation, environmental impacts, and mental health harms. CSU representatives said the initiative grew out of Academic Senate recommendations and a systemwide generative AI committee, and that the goal was to provide equitable access, training, governance, and workforce alignment across the 23-campus system. CSU officials described systemwide contracts for AI tools, the AI Commons training hub, and faculty grant programs supporting AI-related curriculum innovation. They said more than 93,000 ChatGPT EDU accounts had been activated, over 4,300 faculty had taken voluntary training, and $3 million had been awarded to 63 faculty-led projects from more than 400 submissions. San Jose State University highlighted its own AI-focused programs, courses, orientation training, faculty fellows, student ambassadors, and interdisciplinary efforts to build AI literacy and responsible use into instruction and co-curricular programs. CSU also said it was tracking metrics on adoption, academic outcomes, workforce outcomes, and environmental impacts. Faculty, staff, and student representatives welcomed the educational potential of AI but raised concerns about the rollout, saying it had moved quickly and without enough consultation or consistent systemwide policy. They urged stronger protections for academic freedom, intellectual property, privacy, equity, and worker input, and warned about bias, surveillance, job displacement, and the environmental cost of AI. Legislators pressed CSU and OpenAI representatives on training requirements, data privacy, bias reporting, discipline for misuse, liability, sycophancy, and safeguards against harmful uses such as non-consensual imagery or self-harm-related interactions. CSU said interactions in the licensed tool are private, data are not used to train models, and campuses retain their own conduct processes; members also asked CSU to follow up on systemwide training, policy consistency, and additional safeguards.

Transcript Highlights:

• I changed the direction due to ethical concerns about being forced to participate or being coerced to
• I changed the direction due to ethical concerns about being forced to participate or being coerced to
• I changed the direction due to ethical concerns about being forced to participate or being coerced to
• Patients want to know that their health care professionals are working with ethical integrity and that
• And then, of course, are there ethical concerns with those things?

Keywords: Discussion on SB 132 - 00:06 Vote on SB 132 - 04:41 Discussion on HB 219 - 43:49 Vote on HB 219 – 49:00 Discussion on HCR 20 – 50:08 Vote on HCR 20 – 51:28, 958, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 132, which would create conscience protections for health care professionals who object to participating in certain procedures or services on religious, moral, or ethical grounds. Senator Donald Douglas and several supporters argued the bill is a recruitment and retention tool for Kentucky’s health care workforce, emphasizing provider shortages, maldistribution, and the need to protect individual conscience rights. Supporters said the bill would not apply to emergency care, would not permit denial of care based on a patient’s identity, and would mainly protect professionals from being forced to perform procedures they believe are unethical. They also cited similar laws in six other states and said the bill would have a cause of action to give it enforcement teeth. Supportive testimony came from an emergency physician, a registered nurse, and others who described personal experiences or examples involving objections to abortion-related care, opioid prescribing, and pressure to participate in procedures that conflicted with conscience. They said conscience protections would help attract providers, preserve ethical integrity, and allow clinicians to make professional judgments without corporate or institutional coercion. In questioning, senators asked about practical examples, the scope of the bill, whether it would cover hypothetical cases involving patients of particular religions or identities, and which states have similar laws. The sponsor and supporters repeatedly said the bill is about procedures, not patients, and that it should not be read to allow discrimination against individuals. Opponents, including pediatricians and a registered nurse/minister, warned that the bill is overly broad and could allow refusals of care by not only physicians but also pharmacists, clerks, and ambulance drivers. They argued it could delay treatment, increase discrimination, and worsen access problems in rural areas, especially for contraception, Plan B, blood transfusions, and other services. Critics said existing professional ethics already require patient care and that the bill could undermine evidence-based medicine and worsen Kentucky’s provider shortage. The committee took testimony and questions; no final vote or disposition was announced in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It includes ethics. It includes technology. It includes professionalism. It includes ethics.
• And then we also have a professional ethics committee, which, you know, We also have a professional ethics
• opinion on how to use AI in an ethical manner.
• So we're really proud of our professional ethics committee.
• So we're really proud of our professional ethics committee.

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 413, relating to attorney’s fees, suit money, and costs in family law cases. Representative Gottlieb explained that the bill and strike-all amendment were intended to promote fairness, create more uniformity across circuits, expand judicial discretion in awarding fees, and strengthen enforcement language. Members discussed how the amendment’s reference to good-faith settlement offers would apply only after trial in fee determinations, not during the trial itself. Jamie Epstein of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section supported the measure overall, saying it would improve consistency and deter bad-faith litigation, but noted concern about one paragraph creating a presumption of entitlement to fees in contempt actions. The committee adopted the strike-all amendment and then passed HB 413 favorably as amended by a 13-0 vote. Chair Koster said the bill would provide needed clarification in family law practice and help parties litigate more professionally and amicably. After the vote, the committee heard a presentation from Florida Bar President Sayah Baker Barnes on the Florida Bar’s role and the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession. Baker Barnes described the Florida Bar as an arm of the Florida Supreme Court responsible for regulating lawyers, protecting the public, handling discipline, reimbursing some victims of lawyer theft through the client security fund, and providing continuing legal education. She said AI use among lawyers has grown rapidly and that the Bar has created committees, guidance, and an ethics opinion to help lawyers use AI responsibly. She emphasized that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of AI-generated citations and work product, noted that Florida courts have already disciplined lawyers and a pro se litigant for fake AI-generated citations, and discussed confidentiality, privilege, and deepfake concerns. Members asked about protecting client information and finding best-practice resources, and she directed them to the Bar’s LegalFuel site and AI guidance materials. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Carrie Stillman, the executive director of the Commission on Ethics.
• Actually, the Commission on Ethics. Madam Director, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• This is a recommendation of the Florida Commission on Ethics this year.
• In 2024, the legislature changed the law governing ethics complaints. Mr.
• I am here before you on behalf of the Florida Commission on Ethics.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and considered several election- and ethics-related bills, along with a block of gubernatorial confirmations. Senate Bill 572, by Senator Harrell, updated ethics statutes so the definition of “relative” would include foster parents and foster children; the Commission on Ethics supported the change as a recommendation, and the bill passed unanimously. Senate Bill 414, by Senator Bracey Davis, would have allowed campaign funds to be used for campaign-related child care expenses, but the sponsor said it lacked the votes to advance and temporarily postponed it. The committee also heard Senate Bill 500, by Senator Avila, which would provide FDLE protective security details for major-party nominees for governor, lieutenant governor, and cabinet offices through the election and transition period. Senators raised questions about definitions, current protections, and public disclosure of travel information; despite some opposition over taxpayer funding, the bill was reported favorably. Senate Bill 620, by Senator Mayfield, required candidates to disclose any non-U.S. citizenship when qualifying for office; testimony from a dual citizen criticized the bill as unnecessary and stigmatizing, while supporters framed it as transparency. The bill also passed favorably. Chair Gates then presented CS for SB 92, creating whistleblower-style protections for public employees who file ethics complaints based on firsthand knowledge, including remedies for retaliation; the Commission on Ethics supported it and it passed favorably. The committee also approved a slate of gubernatorial appointments en bloc. Finally, Senate Bill 564, by Senator Yarborough, would allow registered or pre-registered high school students to volunteer at polling places for community service hours; testimony from a supervisor of elections and advocacy groups supported the civics benefit, a senator asked about how it would interact with existing community service requirements, and the bill passed favorably. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• um, Ethics Committee meeting. um, Ethics Committee meeting.
• c> Committee<00:01:01.640> is Today, the House Ethics Committee is Today, the House Ethics
• Ethics complaints are time is expired. Ethics complaints are extremely<00:04:05.560> rare.
• uh, were the last ethics complaints. uh, were the last ethics complaints.
• And my work ethics stands for itself. about true ethics violations that I about true ethics violations

Keywords: 1183, house