Transcript Highlights:

• Those are File Item 8, SB 1205; File Item 9, SB 1274; File Item 11, SB 1055; File Item 15, SB 1170; and
• , file item 9, SB 1274, file item 11, SB 1055, file item 15, SB 1170.
• I'm sorry, not file item 2. File item 15, SB 1170, file item 17, SB 1438.
• The consent calendar consists of file item 8, SB 1205; file item 9, SB 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file
• File item 9, SB 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file item 15, SB 1170; file item 17, SB 1438.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on wildfire resilience, land use, and local government transparency. SB 911 by Senator Becker would require notification to fire enforcement agencies when a home in a high fire severity zone is sold with an agreement for the buyer to bring the property into defensible-space compliance; the California Association of Realtors said it would drop opposition if the bill is amended to use the preliminary change of ownership report, and the bill passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 994 by Senator Cabaldon would bar local officials from signing nondisclosure agreements that prevent them from sharing information with the elected decision-makers of their jurisdiction; supporters framed it as a transparency measure, and it also passed 4-0 to Appropriations. SB 1041 by Senator Riggins would expand PACE financing for wildfire home-hardening improvements and add consumer protections, but it drew strong opposition from homeowner advocates, county treasurers, bankers, and others over predatory lending and lien concerns; it passed 3-2 and remained on call. The committee also considered SB 1075 by Senator Reyes, which would require local governments in AB 617 communities to consider air-quality reduction measures in land-use approvals for industrial and commercial projects. Environmental justice groups supported the bill as a way to implement community air plans, while counties, cities, business groups, builders, trucking interests, and others opposed it as duplicative of CEQA and a barrier to investment and jobs. After debate over local control and environmental justice, the bill passed 3-2 and remained on call. SB 958 by Senator Cabaldon would advance the Midway Rising redevelopment project in San Diego, replacing a former arena and parking lots with housing, affordable units, parks, and a new entertainment venue; with no opposition voiced, it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. Another wildfire-related measure, SB 1182 by Senator Allen, would require local governments to consider insurance availability in safety planning for development in high fire hazard areas and direct state technical guidance on the issue. Supporters said insurance access is now a key indicator of risk, while some members questioned whether the bill would add useful information or burden local governments; the bill received a 1-1 vote and remained on call. The committee then began hearing SB 1116 by Senator Caballero, a starter-home/infill housing bill creating a streamlined ministerial path for small projects up to 10 units, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or a vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• For almost a year since the tragic death of our late colleague Sylvester Turner, the citizens of the
• Friends who we recently lost, the late Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the late Sylvester Turner
• Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Bill Hembree, a dedicated educator, businessman, and former
• Our files burned. Our bodies burned. Our bodies twisted. Hung, shot, trod in the dirt.
• OUR FILES BURNED. OUR BODIES BURNED. OUR BODIES TWISTED. HUNG SHOT. TROD In the dirt.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, February 2, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the comments are part of the bill file. Are you making a motion?
• Apologies for being late. My name is JP Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association.
• But lately, I’m thinking I need to move back to Texas. Anyway, I have greatly opposed this bill.
• Open your eyes before it's too late. Good morning. Olivia. Good morning.
• My apologies for being a little late, and thank you to the members who are here today.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on August 19, 2025, to consider ACA 8, SB 280, and an informational hearing on AB 604. The meeting began with several failed motions to adjourn, to read public comments into the record, and to recess so members could review the roughly 16,000 public comments submitted through the committee portal. The chair emphasized the hearing’s expedited format, transparency measures, and rules limiting witness testimony, and noted a letter from Speaker Rivas authorizing Assemblymember Berman to present ACA 8. ACA 8, described by supporters as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would place before voters a temporary congressional redistricting plan tied to AB 604 and triggered only if another state, especially Texas, adopts a partisan mid-decade redistricting. Supporters, including Assemblymember Berman, labor groups, CTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates, SEIU, and other allied organizations, argued the measure was a response to partisan gerrymandering elsewhere and a defense of democracy, with voters having the final say in a November 4, 2025 special election. Opponents, including current and former redistricting commissioners, good-government groups, business and taxpayer organizations, and many members of the public, argued the proposal undermines California’s independent redistricting model, was rushed without adequate public review, could cost roughly $200 million or more, and would invite litigation and partisan manipulation. The committee also debated a proposed amendment that would bar legislators who voted for ACA 8 from later running for Congress in districts adopted under the measure. After extended procedural disputes, the committee voted to lay the amendment on the table. The hearing then continued with extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly divided between strong support and strong opposition, but the transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on ACA 8 or SB 280 before the excerpt ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• I apologize for being<00:01:01.440> late.
• You guys got out a little being late.
• House Bill 130 mirror Senate File 0101. House Bill 130 mirror Senate File 0101.
• lawsuits with a pen and a paper and file lawsuits with a pen and a paper and file them.<01:27:36.159
• It's just not going to file my suit.

Bills: HB0130, HB0147

Keywords: Second Amendment, firearms, state rights, federal regulation, law enforcement, civil penalties, government liability, property tax, homeowner exemption, Wyoming, voter initiative, tax legislation, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Next we will hear Senate File 3603.
• Next we will hear Senate file 3603. Next we will hear Senate file 3603.
• Senate file 3603 before the committee? Senate file 3603 before the committee?
• Next, we will hear Senate File 29. For committee record, we're updating Senate File 3572.
• Next, we will hear Senate File 2909. Next, we will hear Senate File 2909.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I apologize for being late and not hearing your testimony, but I assume you're a DLNR. Okay.
• I apologize for being late and not hearing your testimony, but I assume you're a DLNR. Okay.
• I apologize for our late submission, so I'll summarize our comments.
• petition or to file petition or to file to<01:37:50.600> intervene<01:37:51.840> to
• Oh, you're too late. She already checked it, so you can't change your vote. Perfect.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• "Then should we, I mean, consider—I know, um, at this point it might be too late—but having, um, when
• Aloha, Chair and members, and uh, happy late Chinese New Year.
• We had received $1 million from the late Representative Nakushima.
• <01:09:32.719> representative million from the late representative million from the late representative
• And so, um, I know on to file bills.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard SB 2627, which would exempt Hawaii Tourism Authority contracts and agreements for sports projects, events, and related marketing from the state procurement code and other competitive bidding requirements. HTA, DBEDT, and the State Procurement Office testified in support or with comments, while one individual offered general support for sports tourism. Senators focused on narrowing the bill so the exemption would apply more specifically to sports-related projects and marketing, rather than broad marketing activities, and discussed whether the bill should require notice to the State Procurement Office or approval by the chief procurement officer. Procurement officials said a reporting requirement would be the most expeditious option, while still allowing post-event monitoring and public posting of exemptions. Members also discussed whether the exemption should be limited to situations involving sole-source sports entities, such as major leagues or international sports organizations, to better justify bypassing procurement rules. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, but members and testifiers agreed to continue working on the language. The hearing then moved to SB 2074 relating to state facilities and naming rights for the Aloha Stadium and Hawaii Convention Center. The Stadium Authority, HTA, and DBEDT testified in support, while the Outdoor Circle and other organizations opposed the measure. Opponents argued the bill could create fiscal and legal risk, echoing concerns raised in prior legislation and by the attorney general, and warned it would mark a major shift by treating public facilities as commercial branding opportunities. Supporters said naming rights could generate significant revenue to help fund the stadium project and reduce the burden on the state and developers. Senators questioned how signage would be handled, especially whether it would be exterior-facing or limited to inward-facing signage, and the Stadium Authority said it was willing to work with the Outdoor Circle on language that would preserve community aesthetics while allowing revenue generation. A senator cited a prior study estimating naming rights could bring in about $1.5 million per year over 20 years, and asked what that revenue would buy for the public; the Stadium Authority responded that it would help advance the project toward a larger, improved stadium. No final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and I'm reading from an email here that I received late last year.
• <01:23:33.600> last an email here that I received late last an email here that I received
• Uh and as my late stepfather considered.
• Uh and as my late stepfather pointed<01:27:44.880> out<01:27:45.199> and<01:27:45.360><
• An abuser could say, "I am gonna file this prevention petition in order to stop them from taking the

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for the opportunity to give everyone a chance to file in and grab a seat.
• Not to mention the people of Hawaiʻi, as you mentioned the late Masaru Yuchi was the visionary who was
• We are very blessed to have the Brother Dutton files in the archives, and should this bill go forward
• in the archives and should Dutton files in the archives and should this<01:24:46.760> bill<01
• so well I appreciate it'll be too late so well I appreciate that<01:36:01.440> I<01:36:02.119

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees first heard House Bill 229, which would establish a statewide speed restriction for motor vehicles under certain circumstances. Testimony on the bill was limited and came in support from the City and County of Honolulu’s transportation services, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. No one testified in opposition, and there were no questions. The committees then took up House Bill 860, which would grant immunity from liability to the state or counties when they repair or maintain a street whose ownership or jurisdiction is disputed between them. The Department of Transportation and the Department of Land and Natural Resources submitted written testimony, and the Hawaii State Association of Counties, Maui County Council Chair Alice Lee, Hawaii County Council member Heather Kimble, and the Iolani Homestead Community Association for Justice testified in support. The Ho Association for Justice opposed the bill, arguing the immunity was too broad and that the issue had already been addressed by prior legislation. In discussion, members raised concerns about liability and asked whether a different approach, such as extending the 2017 law transferring Oahu roads in limbo to the counties, would be acceptable; county representatives said that path could be considered if immunity were removed. House Bill 1161, which would authorize counties to use a road usage charge mechanism similar to the state’s, drew support from the Department of Transportation, the Energy Office, the Hawaii State Association of Counties, several county and city offices, and the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Rental car companies and industry groups supported the concept but asked for amendments, including a flat fee instead of a per-mile charge, relief for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and a delayed implementation date. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii also supported relief for hybrids. Members questioned the rental car representatives about the flat-fee proposal, and they said a per-mile charge would be difficult to calculate and pass on to customers. At the end of the joint agenda, the committees deferred decision-making on HB 1161 to Tuesday, March 18 at 3:00 p.m., and the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee also deferred the three measures to that date and time. The Transportation and Culture and the Arts committee then began hearing House Bill 925, which would create a Performing Arts Special Fund, and House Bill 1378, which would establish a Performing Arts Grants Program and Special Fund and revise the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ responsibilities and funding sources. HB 925 received support from the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts and written support or comments from DBEDT, the Hawaii Arts Alliance, and others. HB 1378 drew extensive testimony and discussion focused on preserving arts funding while addressing concerns about the use of Works of Art Special Fund dollars for positions and programming. The Governor’s office said it supported the intent but had concerns; the Attorney General warned that the bill’s cap and transfer provisions were unclear and could affect the tax-exempt status of bond-funded dollars; and the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts opposed the measure, urging an audit, tracking of deposits, and a shift of positions and programs to general funds instead of changing the law. The chair explained that the bill was intended to protect arts funding while tightening the legal guardrails around bond-financed dollars and preserving federal support, and asked testimony to focus on new points as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• So by the time we found the tumor, it was too late.
• I have never in my life wanted to file a lawsuit.
• By then it was too late, and our 13-year-old son, Ace, had to have his leg amputated.
• When they finally decided to listen to her, it was too late.
• That's way too many and way too late.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was very thankful that they did that in their late years, in the 80s.
• that in their in in their in their late that in their in in their in their late late<00:35:52.320
• Um this is late years in the 80s.
• Although it'd be best to file of that.
• it's a little late to close the door. it's a little late to close the door.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• here in late April in Minnesota. here in late April in Minnesota.
• motion to House File 4769. motion to House File 4769.
• represent Johnson moves House File 4923. represent Johnson moves House File 4923.
• Item last, House File 3172, fine piece of legislation. So, I will move House File 3172.
• So, I will move House File 3172. >> Okay. So, I will move House File 3172.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and reflects the work that has been done in the Senate Taxes Committee and includes all of Senate File
• 132 that went to um all of Senate File 132 that went to the<00:07:58.000> Senate<00:07:58.400
• of the um, uh, discussions in the late of the um, uh, discussions in the late 90s<00:46:53.119><
• It is the same as appeared in Senate File 2374, the second engrossment.
• Senate File Senate File 2374,<01:05:21.839> the<01:05:22.079> second 2374, the second

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are file item 8, SB 1205; file item 9, SB 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file item 15, SB 1170; and
• , file item 9, SB 1274, file item 11, SB 1055, file item 15, SB 1170.
• The consent calendar consists of file item 8, SB 1205; file item 9, SB 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file
• File item 9, SB 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file item 15, SB 1170; file item 17, SB 1438.
• 1274; file item 11, SB 1055; file item 15, SB 1170; and file item 17, SB 1438.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• been late.
• They've been late, too. So, that's where we are.
• We're late and I apologize to the 291.
• of Senate hearings and I've been late. of Senate hearings and I've been late.
• They've been late, too. They've been late, too.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission. Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative and Chair Marjorie Decker is here, who filed the bill on the House side, has been talking
• Many of our members work irregular hours with early, late, and overnight shifts in transportation, construction
• Many of our members work irregular hours with early, late, and overnight shifts for workers in the transportation
• So I'm here to support the law that Marjorie Decker filed. I'm supporting this FFN.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held its sixth public hearing and took testimony on a large slate of bills, with the chair moving H. 542/S. 341 on family, friend, and neighbor (FFN) child care to the top of the agenda so young constituents would not have to wait. Witnesses from labor, community organizations, and FFN providers strongly supported the bill, saying FFN care fills critical gaps for families working nonstandard hours, especially in low-income, immigrant, and BIPOC communities. Testimony emphasized that FFN providers are currently underpaid, often receive only about $24 per child per day, and should be guaranteed at least the state minimum wage. Witnesses also backed changes to the voucher system to allow families to combine formal and FFN care more flexibly, and they supported creating an FFN advisory council. Committee members asked about the difference between FFN and center-based care, registration requirements, fingerprinting/background checks, EEC’s ongoing study group, and the fiscal impact; witnesses said the current annual cost is about $1.8 million and could rise to about $6 million if all current FFN providers were paid minimum wage, still under 1% of the EEC budget. The committee then closed testimony on that bill. The committee next heard testimony on several preschool and universal pre-K bills, including H. 707 on public preschool facilities, H. 687/S. 339 on universal pre-K and mixed delivery, and related bills such as H. 606, H. 523, H. 618, H. 522, H. 510, and H. 615, many of which were later closed without additional witnesses. A Lowell school official testified that space and facilities funding are major barriers to expanding preschool and that the city has hundreds of children on voucher waitlists. Other witnesses and organizations, including the Early Care and Education Consortium and AFT Massachusetts, supported mixed-delivery universal pre-K and warned that public-school expansion should not undermine community-based providers, whose preschool tuition helps subsidize infant and toddler care. Several witnesses also urged stronger standards for preschool teachers, better staffing ratios, and more integrated special education and support services. The committee accepted written testimony on some bills and closed testimony on the others when no one else came forward. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 541/S. 373, which would ban school exclusion in pre-K through third grade. Advocates from Massachusetts Advocates for Children, Mass Appleseed, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, AFT Massachusetts, and the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee argued that suspensions and expulsions at young ages harm learning, worsen inequities, and contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. They cited data showing disproportionate impacts on Black and Latinx students, students with disabilities, and low-income children, and described personal stories of children whose behavior improved when schools kept them in class and addressed underlying needs. Committee members asked for updated data on the number of students and districts affected, and witnesses said they would provide more detailed written information. After testimony on this and a few other bills, including S. 372, S. 357, and H. 275/S. 133, the committee closed testimony and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm actually probably going to put it into my late 8 because I found a really cool way to use it.
• I just got it late yesterday, so just off the cuff, if anyone has ever heard of it before, no?
• April, that's filing for real election week. Oh man, it's a...
• I think it's Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are filing dates. I think.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, county, or district office, a candidate must file
• Subsequent court filings after the involved Louisiana law firms collapsed revealed approximately $30
• I want to first honor the late Senator Geraldine Thompson, who refused to let Florida forget what happened
• As I have said before, while that is a long time to wait, it is never too late to do the right thing,

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met and took up a series of bills, beginning with SB 620, which would require candidates for federal, state, county, district, judicial, and school board offices to disclose any citizenship in countries other than the United States. The bill was presented as a transparency measure, with one opponent waiving time, and it was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. The committee then heard SB 1396 on litigation financing consumer protection. Supporters from the Florida Justice Reform Institute, American Tort Reform Association, and U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform argued the bill would add transparency, limit funder control, and require disclosure of foreign entities involved in litigation funding. Opponents, including the Florida Justice Association, argued the bill would create strategic advantages for defendants and could affect discovery and settlement dynamics. The bill passed 7-2. The committee also approved SB 192, removing a $1,500 cap on patient funds chiropractors may hold in trust; SB 888, limiting indemnity and insurance requirements in design-professional contracts; CS/SB 332, creating a temporary closed-meeting exemption for pre-suit Burt Harris litigation strategy discussions; SB 820, requiring quarterly reporting on problem-solving courts; SB 1500, updating uncontested probate procedures; SB 1224, making fraudulent entry into rental dwellings a third-degree felony; and SB 1000, setting a floor and ceiling for interest rates on law firm trust accounts. Each of these bills was reported favorably, with broad support and little or no opposition. The committee also advanced CS/SB 694, which would compensate the descendants of the Groveland Four. Senator Bracey Davis described the bill as a final step in addressing the wrongful convictions, deaths, and long-term harm suffered by Charles Greenlee, Walter Irvin, Samuel Shepard, and Ernest Thomas. Family members and advocacy groups testified in support, urging the state to complete its acknowledgment of wrongdoing with monetary compensation. An amendment was adopted to divide any appropriation equally among the four families. The bill passed unanimously. Finally, SB 144 creating a public records exemption for personal information of Judicial Qualifications Commission employees and their families was approved 9-1. Several members also requested to be recorded as voting in the affirmative on specific bills before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sometimes I've been here long hours and late at night I would go up to the Senate chamber when nobody
• In a, in, in, in a house where 30 bills have been filed so far that put that safety at risk.
• Three friends of mine filed for Speaker David, Ana Maria, Dustin.
• In spite of all the fabrications and flat out lies that you have heard about him lately, Dustin is a

Transcript Highlights:

• On Friday, board staff filed a motion to exclude three of Representative Simmons’s witnesses.
• I created it around the time that I was considering filing this complaint.
• I created it around the time that I was considering filing this complaint. I'm going to object.
• You signed and filed the complaint in this matter that caused this to come about, correct? I did.
• Truce advise you about how to file the complaint? Thank you. Ms.

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.