Transcript Highlights:

• You as legislators, it's like we should make sure that when legislation is written, it's done in a way
• Thank you, legislators. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Theory? Theory?
• You can be part of that difference by supporting this piece of legislation.
• I like your legislation. Thank you.
• Are we in need of all of the legislation we're filing?

Bills: HB256, HCR19, HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19

Keywords: severe weather, adaptation plan, vulnerability assessment, environmental protection, state agencies, federal agents, transparency, law enforcement, identification, public trust, immigration enforcement, HCR 19, Texas concurrent resolution, federal immigration enforcement, masked agents, facial coverings, visible identification, uniforms, badges, name tags

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, that was a, you know, that was a foreign person and there's other legislation. that's been
• None of that would be in danger by passing this legislation.
• We have to, we've got to report it in our ethics. or reports, right? Yeah.
• My name is Figueroa, Chief of Legislative Affairs. We are in opposition to the bill as written.
• I mean, do you have to have legislative directive to do this if you have?

Bills: HB256, HB1308, HB1554, HB1743, HB2308, HB2351, HB2858, HB3676, HB3784, HB4312, HB4552, HB4823, HB4852, HB5007, HB5010, HB5520, HB5524, HCR19, HB256, HCR19

Keywords: E-verify, employment verification, illegal employment, state contracts, government entities, license suspension, immigration compliance, state grant funding, E-Verify, compliance, penalties, immigration, government contracts, employee status, state contractors, E-verify program, legally present, employment practices, legal services, public money

Transcript Highlights:

• , Representative Ford, was voted by the chamber and the Economic Development Corporation as the legislator

Bills: HB3419, HB4153, HB3430, HB3791, HB3277, HB4119, HB4408, HB3905, HB3968, HB3835, HB3386, HB2650, HB3742, HB3588, HB3748, HB4303, HB4311, HB3028, HB4428, HB4429, HB4132, HB1889, HB3265, HB1739, HB4434, HB3313, HB3852, HB4263, HB3413, HB3414, HB3415, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3420, HB2116, HB2206, HB3625, HB2939, HB3721, HB1823, HB2425, HB4440, HJR1087, HB4003, HJR1077, HB1770, HB1675, HB3627, HB3891, HJR1067, HB3462, HJR1053, HJR1054, HJR1044, HB3472, HB1225, HJR1019, HB4145, HJR1081, HB1746, HJR1069, HJR1050, HB1638, HB3327, HJR1055, HB3127, HB4488, HB2955, HB3781, HB3783, HB3802, HB2471, HB2937, SCR16, HB2960, HB3466, HB3262, HB3269, HB3152, HB4140, HB4142, HB3148, HB3378

Keywords: corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law, public office, driver license, reading proficiency, minors, education requirements, alternative testing, attendance, remedial reading, public school, oath of enrollment, court financial obligations, cost hearing, payment plan, community service, court compliance program, debt relief

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Ford was voted by the Chamber and the Economic Development Corporation the legislator

Bills: HB3419, HB4153, HB3430, HB3791, HB3277, HB4119, HB4408, HB3905, HB3968, HB3835, HB3386, HB2650, HB3742, HB3588, HB3748, HB4303, HB4311, HB3028, HB4428, HB4429, HB4132, HB1889, HB3265, HB1739, HB4434, HB3313, HB3852, HB4263, HB3413, HB3414, HB3415, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3420, HB2116, HB2206, HB3625, HB2939, HB3721, HB1823, HB2425, HB4440, HJR1087, HB4003, HJR1077, HB1770, HB1675, HB3627, HB3891, HJR1067, HB3462, HJR1053, HJR1054, HJR1044, HB3472, HB1225, HJR1019, HB4145, HJR1081, HB1746, HJR1069, HJR1050, HB1638, HB3327, HJR1055, HB3127, HB4488, HB2955, HB3781, HB3783, HB3802, HB2471, HB2937, SCR16, HB2960, HB3466, HB3262, HB3269, HB3152, HB4140, HB4142, HB3148, HB3378

Keywords: corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law, public office, driver license, reading proficiency, minors, education requirements, alternative testing, attendance, remedial reading, public school, oath of enrollment, court financial obligations, cost hearing, payment plan, community service, court compliance program, debt relief

Summary: The House convened, heard an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, and then moved through a long floor calendar with several introductions and recognitions, including guests from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma Trucking Day participants, Mid America Christian University, and the day’s doctor and nurse honorees. The chamber also adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 16, recognizing March as National Women’s History Month. Members debated and passed House Bill 2937, which extends constitutional carry to allow qualified individuals to carry firearms on boats. Questions focused on alcohol use on lakes, public safety, and whether law enforcement agencies had requested or opposed the bill. The House also passed House Bill 2960, limiting lawsuits against firearm manufacturers when a purchaser modifies a firearm; House Bill 3466, removing the Corporation Commission’s unused petty cash fund from statute; House Bill 3262, increasing the warrant-service fee from $50 to $150 at the request of the Oklahoma County Sheriff; and House Bill 3269, allowing electronic arrest warrants to mirror existing electronic search-warrant procedures. Additional bills passed included House Bill 3152, authorizing Corporation Commission officers to transport certain detained truckers to jail and book them; House Bill 414, making theft of a firearm a Class 2 felony regardless of value; House Bill 4142, expanding criminal statutes at the request of the Oklahoma City Police Bomb Squad; House Bill 3148, modernizing VIN inspection procedures and fee handling; and House Bill 3378, creating a revolving board for OCAST’s grant-awarding body after all members rolled off at once and delayed grants. House Bill 3378 also had its emergency clause adopted. Most measures passed with strong bipartisan margins, and the House adjourned after announcements and committee notices.

Bills: HB145, HR1, SB29, SB37, SB193, SB58, SB64, HB195, HB234, HB279, HB287, HB292, HB303, SB30, SB35, SB40, SB43, SB48, SB96, SB143, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM29, HM43, HM59, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB332

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County, public accountability, government oversight, impeachment power, children and vulnerable persons, public funds

Transcript Highlights:

• Ethics Board is Assistant Attorney Legislative Ethics Board.
• Ethics Board is Assistant Attorney Also in front of this Legislative Ethics Board is Assistant Attorney
• Now, the issues before this Legislative Ethics Board, Now, the issues before this Legislative Ethics
• If legislators are violating the Legislative Ethics Act because they act in their position of benefiting
• accused of violating the Legislative Ethics Act.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate all of the Legislative Ethics Board.
• I appreciate all of the Legislative Ethics Legislative Ethics Board.
• Ethics Board is Assistant Attorney also in front of this Legislative Ethics Board is Assistant Attorney
• Now, the issues before this Legislative Ethics Board, Now, the issues before this Legislative Ethics
• accused of violating the Legislative Ethics Act.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Bills: SB2256, SB2053, SB2090, SB2169, SB2245, SB2519, SB2765, SB3055, SB3102, SB3118, SB3144, SB3248, HCR43, HCR69, HCR188, HB2300, HB1605, HB2094, HB1166, HB1970, HB1969, HB2050, HB2165, HB2271, HB2338, HB2339, HB1972, HB2208, HB2310, HB1801, HB2498, HB2443, HB1976, HB2246, HB2319, HB1541, HB2606, HB2343, HB1853, HB1840, HB1785, HB1952, HB2551, HB2171, HB1661, HB1802, HB1663, HB1838, HB1960, HB1815, HB2599, HB1769, HB2315, HB1860, HB1891, HB2104, HB2158, HB389, HB1510, HB2089, HB2090, HB2099, HB1516, HB1548, HB1481, HB2452, HB2329, HB2275, HB1658, HB2272, HB2273, HB2276, HB2335, HB1656, HB2207, HB2289, HB1854, HB2581, HB20, HB2296, HB1707, HB2297, HB1890, HB2241, HB2474, HB1740, HB2472, HB1688, HB2345, HB2546, HB1574, HB1546, HB2218, HB1163, HB1523, HB2021, HB1524, HB2020

Keywords: Brother Joseph Dutton, Kalaupapa, historic recognition, observance, Hawaii history, salvage vehicles, vehicle title transfer, electronic signatures, insurance, administrative efficiency, child custody, mental health, evaluations, licensed counselors, family court, SB2245, Hawaii ethics, revolving door, state employee ethics, cooling-off period

Transcript Highlights:

• to share our 2025 legislative recommendations with you.
• to share our 2025 legislative recommendations with you.
• for strengthening Florida's ethics code.
• for strengthening Florida's ethics code.
• The legislative change was important because it had been the legislative recommendation of the commission

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:

• An ethics complaint is a very serious thing. I have never brought an ethics complaint before.
• An ethics complaint is a very serious thing. I have never brought an ethics complaint before.
• ><c> the</c><00:05:24.200><c> same</c> Ethics Committee abides by the same Ethics Committee abides by
• fields, and they legislate on sorts of fields, and they legislate on all<00:09:05.800><c> sorts</c><
• </c> you've been here, any ethics complaints. you've been here, any ethics complaints.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a Legislative Ethics Board matter. Docket agency number is 2025-5.
• I understand that ...are all of the Legislative Ethics Board members.
• Washington State Legislative Ethics Compliance.
• With that, any Legislative Ethics Board member questions? Okay.
• That's on the Legislative Ethics Board website.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The hearing resumed on day two of the Legislative Ethics Board fact-finding matter involving Representative Tara Simmons. After opening remarks and confirmation that board members had not engaged in outside research or ex parte communications, Simmons’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 improperly combined a legislative proviso for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and private conduct were intertwined and that the board had enough evidence to require a defense. After deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss and proceeded to hear defense testimony. The first defense witness, Sharon Navas, testified that she met Simmons through advocacy work, later hired her at the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), and maintained written employment policies intended to separate Simmons’s legislative role from her work for EEC. Navas said Simmons was never compensated for lobbying or legislative acts, that EEC paid her from unrestricted funds, and that Simmons did not work on the AEJG dashboard project or participate in the contract dispute with Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley. Navas described the proviso request and later contract issues as separate from Simmons’s legislative duties, and said she continued to pay invoices while the project was being completed. Simmons then testified about her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics advice before taking outside employment or pursuing provisos. She said she repeatedly consulted House ethics counsel and reviewed prior board decisions to ensure her outside work and legislative actions were separated. Simmons described her relationship with Anthony Powers, the dashboard project, the proviso process, and her understanding that the work was distinct from her legislative role. The hearing paused for lunch after part of Simmons’s direct examination, with testimony set to continue after the break.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a Legislative Ethics Board matter. Docket agency number is 2025-5.
• I understand that— —all of the Legislative Ethics Board members.
• Washington State Legislative Ethics Compliance.
• With that, any Legislative Ethics Board member questions?” “Okay.
• That's on the Legislative Ethics Board website.

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><00:01:20.400><c> complaint</c> updated our existing ethics complaint updated our existing ethics
• </c><00:04:10.439><c> complaints</c> independent of other ethics complaints independent of other ethics
• So we've got an ethics complaint, an amended ethics complaint, regarding her actions from last year.
• Committee to reconvene yeah the Ethics Committee to reconvene yeah the<00:09:21.040><c> Ethics</c><00
• complaint so we've have an ethics complaint so we've have an amended<00:10:28.800><c> ethics</c><00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a Legislative Ethics Board matter. The agency number is 2025-5.
• It will ultimately be up to this legislative ethics board to decide.
• And thank you to the Legislative Ethics Board for appearing here.
• Any questions by the Legislative Ethics Board members?
• 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:

• This is a Legislative Ethics Board matter. That agency number is 2025-5. All right.
• , to outline their respective cases for this Legislative Ethics Board.”
• And thank you to the Legislative Ethics Board for appearing here.
• After that, you may be asked questions by this Legislative Ethics Board.
• Any questions by the Legislative Ethics Board members?

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:

• </c> single legislator. single legislator.
• Those they took no legislative action.
• </c> people that has filed an ethics people that has filed an ethics complaint.<00:07:36.480><c> He'd
• </c> 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.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• 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.
• As a previous ethics committee wrote, quote, "Senators should at all times conduct their legislative
• As a previous ethics committee wrote, quote, "Senators should at all times conduct their legislative
• As a previous ethics committee wrote, quote, "Senators should at all times conduct their legislative

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing in rule 55.2 legislation.
• even read the ethics complaint.
• even read the ethics complaint.
• </c> ethics complaint is. ethics complaint is.
• </c> there's also a pending ethics complaint. there's also a pending ethics complaint.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> ethical conduct. ethical conduct.
• </c> ethical standards. ethical standards.
• ethics.
• . legislation. legislation.
• </c> ethical conduct. ethical conduct.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> every piece of legislative business. every piece of legislative business.
• </c> legislative day. legislative day.
• </c> level of ethical misconduct. level of ethical misconduct.
• </c> legislators who dined together. legislators who dined together.
• legislator? legislator? &gt;&gt; Representative<00:20:26.320><c> Hudson.

Keywords: 1183, house