Transcript Highlights:

• I understand that she received prior ethical consultation and advice from counsel for the House, but
• I understand that she received prior ethical consultation and advice from counsel for the House, but
• In addition to seeking out ethics advice from the Ethics Board counsel, did you also have occasion to
• review Ethics Board decisions?
• Ethical violations in that role.

Summary: The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case. The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding. Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> ethical conduct. ethical conduct.
• </c> ethical standards. ethical standards.
• ethics.
• </c> ethics committee trial. ethics committee trial.
• </c> ethical conduct. ethical conduct.

Committee: Senate Rules and Administration - Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct

Transcript Highlights:

• Today I stand before you with great honor to introduce House Bill 1455.
• 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.
• to amended back in by the House.

Bills: HB1455

Committee: Senate Judiciary

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:

• President, I have the honor to announce the passage by the House of the following House files herewith
• the House of the following<00:05:36.560><c> House</c><00:05:36.800><c> files</c><00:05:37.120><c> here
• The house file go ahead. I'm numbers. The house file go ahead.
• We'll read the house file sorry.
• House file number 688. numbers. House file number 688.

Transcript Highlights:

• The non-partisan House Research Memo available online entitled Ethical Issues and the Minnesota House
• Minnesota House makes it clear that<00:03:28.840><c> the</c><00:03:28.920><c> Ethics</c><00:03:29.239
• I received an ethics complaint alleging that I violated the established norms of this house.
• We are writing to inform you that the House Ethics Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, April 28th
• </c> writing to inform you that the House writing to inform you that the House Ethics<00:36:28.880><c

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• Because this is an internal matter, because this is an ethics issue within the House itself, the only
• time that anything would come out would be when the Ethics Committee makes a report to the whole House
• as to a recommendation of an ethics violation, basically.
• So it's an internal matter within the Ethics Committee, and that's why we elect the ethics members because
• House Bill 824, the chairman suggested that we do it in smaller bites.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> their capacity as our voice on ethics their capacity as our voice on ethics they<00:15:51.800><c
• </c><00:16:15.360><c> says</c> the Senate subcommittee on ethics says the Senate subcommittee on ethics
• President, the ethics complaint in this matter was filed nearly a year ago.
• </c> absolute Masons 562 part 3 says a house absolute Masons 562 part 3 says a house in<00:35:42.520>
• </c> our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics process<00:35:

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair now lays out House Bill 1130, our first House bill of the session, and recognizes its sponsor
• But it will remain a House bill. Okay. Members, any questions for the sponsor on House Bill 1130?
• back into stable housing and rebuild their lives.
• So it's actually antithetical to the code of ethics.
• Would that be an ethics violation?

Bills: SB2101 , SB2334 , SB2633 , SB2637 , SB2713 , SB2781 , SB2782 , SB3059 , HB 1130 , HB256 , HCR19

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Summary: The Committee on State Affairs heard several bills, mostly on alcohol regulation, ethics procedures, the Alamo, and free speech in professional associations. SB 2633 would let the City of Garland hold local option elections on alcohol sales within designated zones and use zoning/land-use rules for alcohol-selling businesses; Senator Johnson and Garland officials said it would reduce the burden of the petition process and support economic development. SB 2637 would require social media platforms to disclose when posts are made by bot accounts and allow Attorney General enforcement; supporters framed it as consumer protection against misleading automated content, while members raised questions about how platforms would identify bots and how enforcement would work. SB 2334 would allow airlines with passenger transportation permits to store sealed alcoholic beverages within five miles of an airport in the same county, which the sponsor and an American Airlines witness said would improve logistics without changing permits, taxes, or alcohol sourcing. The committee also heard SB 2781 and SB 2782, both related to Texas Ethics Commission procedures. SB 2781 would cap civil penalties tied to certain campaign contribution violations by former legislators who later lobby, and SB 2782 would require TEC to adopt discovery control plans and align discovery rules more closely with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to limit costly, open-ended discovery. Both bills were left pending after no public testimony. SB 3059 would transfer oversight of the Alamo from the General Land Office to a new Alamo Commission beginning in 2027; Senator Campbell said it would provide long-term stewardship and transparency, while Senator Birdwell questioned the need for a change and the commission’s structure, and GLO witnesses said they were not aware of any problem prompting the shift. HB 1130, a House companion to a previously passed Senate bill, would provide liability protections for cavern entities that post warning signs, and it was also left pending. A major portion of the meeting focused on SB 2713, which would bar professional or trade associations from denying membership or access based on protected characteristics or lawful speech and assembly. Senator Middleton and invited witnesses described disciplinary actions by realtor associations against members for social media posts, sermons, or political speech, arguing that the National Association of Realtors’ ethics rules were being used to punish private expression and threaten livelihoods through loss of MLS access. Committee members and witnesses discussed whether the bill should be narrowed to avoid affecting religious organizations, how association discipline works, and whether the measure should address existing penalties or only future conduct. The bill was left pending after extensive invited testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the ethics bill, just for everybody's information, did pass.
• I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the ethics alert.
• It came back to the House, and the House said, no way. The vote then was 58 to 39.
• For the Senate, but the House didn't like it. I mean, right.
• Ask one more thing on this ethics alert.

Summary: The committee approved the minutes as corrected and noted there were no employment disclosure forms. It then discussed a draft advisory opinion on legislative stickers, pens, business cards, and similar items. Members agreed the opinion should identify historically provided items as presumptively within normal legislative conduct, but add clearer language that such items still cannot be used in a campaign-related way or otherwise conflict with ethics rules on use of public resources. Staff said Legislative Support Services and administration would be the main points of review for questionable requests, and the draft would be revised for board review. The committee also reviewed a second advisory opinion request about legislative and caucus staff interacting with caucus social media posts. The discussion focused on whether staff may like or engage with posts about legislation or policy positions. Members generally agreed that liking or otherwise engaging with caucus posts could be viewed as support and could create ethics problems, especially because social media content remains online and could later be tied to legislation. The draft was to be revised to draw clearer lines for compliance. Members then discussed a long-running project to review and either retain or retire older advisory opinions, and agreed to continue and complete that review process. They also discussed the recently passed ethics bill and supported issuing an ethics alert summarizing major changes, including concerns about a House amendment affecting social media and website references during the election year activity period. Finally, the committee approved spending about $19,171 to digitize archived case files into searchable format, with members expressing support for moving away from paper records. After public business ended, the committee adjourned the public session and planned to reconvene in executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

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

Committee: Senate Rules and Administration - Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections, and the committee will now come to order.
• Zolkowski, a great general counsel of the Florida Commission on Ethics.
• They're going to review the ethics bill, Senate Bill Thank you, Chairman Gaetz.
• You know, they're working hard, those local ethics boards, for sure.
• You know, they're working hard, those local ethics boards, for sure. Yes, sir.

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections convened, established a quorum, and members introduced themselves and the committee staff. Chair Gaetz outlined the committee’s jurisdiction over election law, ethics law, executive appointments, and related confirmations, and described the committee’s process for handling gubernatorial nominations and member concerns about nominees. The committee then received a briefing from the Florida Commission on Ethics on its 2025 legislative priorities and on implementation of Senate Bill 7014 from the prior year. The commission recommended three changes: expanding the definition of “relative” in the gift law to include current and former foster parents and foster children; authorizing salary withholding to help collect civil penalties and restitution; and adding whistleblower-like protections for people who file ethics complaints. Commission staff also explained how SB 7014 changed complaint processing by requiring allegations to be based on personal knowledge or non-hearsay information and by imposing new deadlines for legal sufficiency review, investigations, and advocates’ recommendations. They said the commission has adapted its intake and review process and is currently meeting the new timelines, though the tighter deadlines may create staffing and scheduling challenges. Commission counsel also provided an update on two active lawsuits. One challenges the constitutional in-office lobbying ban, and the other challenges the requirement that elected municipal officers and mayors file Form 6 financial disclosure forms. The committee discussed the impact of the new complaint standards, the possibility of litigation if deadlines are missed, and whether local ethics boards are implementing SB 7014 similarly. Members expressed support for the commission’s work and asked for written legislative recommendations and proposed statutory language. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

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?
• was ethical or unethical.
• Any questions by the Legislative Ethics Board members?

Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> sure if the committee the ethics sure if the committee the ethics committee<00:11:38.000><c> would
• </c> the um the work of the ethics committee. the um the work of the ethics committee.
• </c> but isn't that also a serious ethical but isn't that also a serious ethical concern?
• </c><00:56:19.280><c> Like</c> review by the ethics committee? Like review by the ethics committee?
• I haven't run the house in 2026.

Committee: House Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• The hour of 10:00 a.m. having arrived, I will call the House Ethics Committee to order.
• This is a House Ethics Committee meeting. This is not a court of law.
• This is a House Ethics Committee meeting.
• This is a House House House um,<00:00:51.640><c> Ethics</c><00:00:52.040><c> Committee</c><00:00:52.360
• c> Committee</c><00:01:01.640><c> is</c> Today, the House Ethics Committee is Today, the House Ethics

Committee: House Ethics

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.

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:

• 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.

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

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:

• </c> president of the house only. president of the house only.
• I can't tell you the House members. There's 400 House members.
• I can't tell you the House members. There's 400 House members.
• </c> action at the will of the House. action at the will of the House.
• It's not only that you have to be ethical when you're on the House floor. It's 24/7.

Committee: House Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, of course, are there ethical concerns with those things?
• We'll move on to House Bill 219 and House Concurrent Resolution 20, and Senator Adams is going to be
• </c><00:50:18.040><c> concurrent</c> and this one is on house concurrent and this one is on house concurrent
• </c><00:50:24.799><c> Bill</c> kind of a companion bill to House Bill kind of a companion bill to House
• </c> Meredith I again this uh house Meredith I again this uh house concurrent<00:51:55.920><c> resolution

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:

• ; House Bill 79 with amendments; House Bill 227 reported favorably; House Bill 410 reported...
• It comes from the House with House floor amendments, House Legislative Bureau amendments, and House Committee
• It comes from the House with a set of House floor amendments and House Committee amendments.
• It comes from the House with a set of House floor amendments and House floor amendments.
• It comes from the House with a set of House floor amendments and House committee amendments.

Bills: SR126 , SR129 , SCR71 , SCR72 , SCR73 , SCR12 , HB221 , HCR54 , HCR79 , HCR87 , HCR94 , HCR95 , HCR97 , HCR102 , HCR104 , HCR58 , SB480 , SB514 , HB12 , HB66 , HB145 , HB167 , HB175 , HB196 , HB213 , HB218 , HB222 , HB256 , HB291 , HB325 , HB326 , HB352 , HB401 , HB430 , HB433 , HB434 , HB448 , HB456 , HB476 , HB481 , HB487 , HB492 , HB549 , HB579 , HB608 , HB621 , HB624 , HB626 , HB632 , HB637 , HB656 , HB722 , HB745 , HB749 , HB804 , HB818 , HB821 , HB833 , HB864 , HB867 , HB874 , HB893 , HB909 , HB951 , HB968 , HB969 , HB978 , HB979 , HB985 , HB988 , HB989 , HB1001 , HB1005 , HB1007 , HB1024 , HB1032 , HB1038 , HB1050 , HB1051 , HB1056 , HB1059 , HB1077 , HB1080 , HB1081 , HB1086 , HB1108 , HB1112 , HB1153 , HB1172 , HB1173 , HB1175 , HB1192 , HB1193 , HB1204 , HB1218 , HB1242 , HB1244 , HB1249 , HB1252 , HB1254 , HB538 , SCR3 , SCR23 , SCR38 , SCR24 , SB102 , SB133 , SB151 , SB165 , SB169 , SB170 , SB200 , SB217 , SB280 , SB291 , SB300 , SB303 , SB330 , SB449 , SB489 , SB521 , SB45 , SB156 , SB181 , SB203 , SB274 , SB304 , SB379 , SB396 , SB410 , SB425 , SB427 , SB436 , SB54 , SB72 , SB129 , SB164 , SB232 , SB287 , SB322 , SB374 , SB375 , SB386 , SB409 , SB447 , SB458 , SB222 , SB399 , SR119 , SCR58 , SCR65 , SCR9 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , HCR41 , HCR47 , HCR63 , HCR69 , HCR31 , HB87 , HB115 , HB162 , HB195 , HB214 , HB217 , HB233 , HB283 , HB290 , HB319 , HB324 , HB345 , HB362 , HB363 , HB368 , HB377 , HB380 , HB382 , HB386 , HB392 , HB406 , HB431 , HB441 , HB466 , HB503 , HB533 , HB559 , HB575 , HB590 , HB593 , HB618 , HB655 , HB664 , HB685 , HB692 , HB707 , HB715 , HB732 , HB738 , HB741 , HB748 , HB776 , HB807 , HB822 , HB856 , HB860 , HB868 , HB887 , HB888 , HB905 , HB908 , HB961 , HB980 , HB990 , HB992 , HB999 , HB1000 , HB1010 , HB1146 , HB1157 , HB1233 , HB1236 , HB1243 , HB54 , HB137 , HB180 , HB192 , HB310 , HB321 , HB396 , HB512 , HB552 , HB578 , HB638 , HB663 , HB708 , HB717 , HB718 , HB1009 , HB1082 , HB1104 , HB1107 , HB1198 , HB1246 , HB27 , HB143 , HB205 , HB259 , HB267 , HB288 , HB308 , HB403 , HB405 , HB414 , HB417 , HB478 , HB546 , HB548 , HB555 , HB557 , HB609 , HB670 , HB672 , HB740 , HB779 , HB786 , HB796 , HB812 , HB848 , HB915 , HB917 , HB921 , HB930 , HB933 , HB1095 , HB1096 , HB1103 , HB1129 , HB1154 , HB1166 , HB1187 , HB1195 , HB1230 , HB17 , HB36 , HB41 , HB47 , HB73 , HB119 , HB126 , HB129 , HB133 , HB140 , HB159 , HB166 , HB211 , HB226 , HB245 , HB271 , HB280 , HB337 , HB351 , HB354 , HB399 , HB571 , HB677 , HB712 , HB723 , HB726 , HB728 , HB750 , HB759 , HB789 , HB844 , HB850 , HB870 , HB966 , HB1006 , HB1018 , HB1036 , HB1241 , SB29 , SB42 , SB43 , SB382 , SB441 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB782

Keywords: SR126, Senate Resolution 126, World Preeclampsia Awareness Day, preeclampsia, maternal mortality, maternal health, pregnancy complications, hypertension, high blood pressure, pregnancy-related disorder, obstetrics, prenatal care, prenatal health, infant mortality, preterm birth, premature birth, Woman's Hospital, Louisiana Senate, women's health, public health awareness

Transcript Highlights:

• So the ethics bill, just for everybody's information, did pass.
• I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the ethics alert.
• It came back to the House, and the House said, no way. The vote then was 58 to 39.
• For the Senate, but the House didn't like it. I mean. Right.
• Ask one more thing on this ethics alert.

Summary: The committee approved the minutes as corrected and noted there were no employment disclosure forms. It then took up an advisory opinion on whether public resources may be used for items such as stickers, pens, and other printed materials. Members agreed the opinion should identify historically provided items as presumptively within the normal and regular conduct of legislative business, but they emphasized that even listed items cannot be used in a campaign-related way. Staff said they would redraft the opinion to reflect that caveat and route it back for board review. The committee also discussed a second advisory opinion request about whether legislative and caucus staff may interact with caucus social media posts by liking or sharing them. The draft conclusion was that staff should not like or engage with posts tied to legislation or policy positions, because such activity could amount to lobbying or create an ethics issue if the content later becomes legislation and remains online. Members asked for clearer language tying the analysis to legislative posts and the caucus context, and the draft will be revised and returned. Members then reviewed the status of a broader project to reexamine older advisory opinions and agreed to continue the review process so the remaining opinions can be retained, modified, or retired. They also discussed the recently passed ethics bill and supported issuing an ethics alert summarizing its major changes, including a House amendment related to election-year social media/web content. Finally, the board approved spending about $19,171 to digitize archived case files in searchable form, with members also supporting digitizing future files going forward. The public session was then adjourned and the board prepared to reconvene in executive session.