Transcript Highlights:

• I would like for the members of the Legislative Women's Caucus to join me on the floor as we honor a
• House Bill 988 by Representative Bagley provides relative to Title 47, current retired legislator special
• Speaker, this legislation creates a penalty for those who are trying to overtake a vehicle parked at
• When we did the major tax legislation the last couple of years, we knew that we might have to pick up
• This simply sets the effective date of this legislation for January 1, 2027.

Bills: HR46, HR47, HR48, HR49, HR50, HR51, HR52, HR53, HR54, HR55, HR56, HR57, HCR31, HB20, HB21, HB166, HB494, HB710, HB795, HB985, HB986, HB987, HB988, HB989, HB990, HB991, HB992, HB993, HB994, HB995, HB996, HB997, HB998, HR42, HR43, HR44, HR45, HCR22, HCR23, HCR24, HCR25, HCR26, HCR27, HCR28, HCR29, HCR30, SCR13, HB894, HB983, HB984, SB19, SB23, SB26, SB30, SB39, SB45, SB46, SB50, SB51, SB55, SB69, SB71, SB73, SB84, SB85, SB89, SB96, SB98, SB101, SB110, SB148, SB150, SB160, SB164, SB303, SB340, HB28, HB36, HB50, HB52, HB56, HB62, HB68, HB92, HB110, HB117, HB119, HB124, HB140, HB147, HB160, HB171, HB174, HB182, HB193, HB196, HB198, HB203, HB228, HB234, HB237, HB260, HB268, HB271, HB285, HB289, HB316, HB351, HB393, HB400, HB413, HB446, HB469, HB486, HB534, HB551, HB552, HB574, HB576, HB634, HB649, HB677, HB735, HB739, HB779, HB784, HB796, HB807, HB842, HB850, HB919, HB474, HB487, HB503, HB606, HB633, HB707, HB720, HB728, HB733, HB846, HB852, HB856, HB868, HB875, HB129, HB130, HB287, HB489, HB545, HB553, HB555, HB570, HB854, HB952, HB221, HB148, HB331, HB149, HB901

Keywords: HR 46, House Resolution 46, water well drillers, water wells, well drilling, driller licensure, licensing requirements, Department of Conservation and Energy, R.S. 38:3098.1, LAC 46.LXXXIX.507, professional references, two years drilling experience, workforce development, barriers to entry, water infrastructure, natural resources, groundwater, public health, state water resources, occupational licensing

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the pledge, leave granted for one member, and several ceremonial recognitions, including Women Shaping Industry Day, Louisiana Agriculture Week, and CODOFIL Day at the Capitol. The chamber also received Senate messages concurring in several House concurrent resolutions and adopting SCRs 14 and 15, which designated Flood Awareness Month and recognized the bond between Quebec and Louisiana. Numerous resolutions and bills were introduced and referred, including measures on retirement systems, juvenile justice districts, carbon sequestration in St. Helena Parish, tax administration, election procedures, education, criminal justice, and state property transfers. The House adopted several resolutions without objection, including commendations for Thrive Academy, Bishop Lonnie Welder, Pastor Aaron Holloway, World Down Syndrome Day, and others. Members also heard committee reports on a wide range of bills, with many reported favorably or with amendments. In morning hour, the House discharged and withdrew two bills from committee, and later returned some bills to the calendar with notice to call them on later dates. The chamber then took up a series of floor bills, passing HB 474 to create an income tax checkoff for the Grambling State University National Alumni Association, HB 487 on penalties for unsafe red-light passing maneuvers, HB 503 on utility terrain vehicles in Golden Meadow, HB 606 on personal delivery devices, HB 633 on estimated income tax filing timing, HB 707 on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Commission Advisory Board, HB 970 on tacit dedication of public roadways, HB 728 on out-of-state tow truck requirements, HB 846 on license plate coverings, HB 852 on a domestic violence donation checkoff, HB 856 on DOTD indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity construction contracts, HB 221 naming the proposed Mississippi River bridge the President Donald J. Trump Expressway, HB 148 designating a highway memorial, and HB 331 creating a Louisiana GOP specialty plate. Most of these bills passed with little or no opposition, though HB 221 drew debate and passed 68-26. The House adjourned after announcing committee meetings for the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like for the members of the Legislative Women's Caucus to join me on the floor as we honor a
• Speaker, this legislation creates a penalty for those who are trying to overtake a vehicle parked at
• When we did the major tax legislation the last couple of years, we knew that we might have to pick up
• Before we discuss the legislation I'm bringing before you today, since my seatmate, roommate, and someone
• This simply sets the effective date of this legislation for January 1, 2027.

Bills: HR46, HR47, HR48, HR49, HR50, HR51, HR52, HR53, HR54, HR55, HR56, HR57, HCR31, HB20, HB21, HB166, HB494, HB710, HB795, HB985, HB986, HB987, HB988, HB989, HB990, HB991, HB992, HB993, HB994, HB995, HB996, HB997, HB998, HR42, HR43, HR44, HR45, HCR22, HCR23, HCR24, HCR25, HCR26, HCR27, HCR28, HCR29, HCR30, SCR13, HB894, HB983, HB984, SB19, SB23, SB26, SB30, SB39, SB45, SB46, SB50, SB51, SB55, SB69, SB71, SB73, SB84, SB85, SB89, SB96, SB98, SB101, SB110, SB148, SB150, SB160, SB164, SB303, SB340, HB28, HB36, HB50, HB52, HB56, HB62, HB68, HB92, HB110, HB117, HB119, HB124, HB140, HB147, HB160, HB171, HB174, HB182, HB193, HB196, HB198, HB203, HB228, HB234, HB237, HB260, HB268, HB271, HB285, HB289, HB316, HB351, HB393, HB400, HB413, HB446, HB469, HB486, HB534, HB551, HB552, HB574, HB576, HB634, HB649, HB677, HB735, HB739, HB779, HB784, HB796, HB807, HB842, HB850, HB919, HB474, HB487, HB503, HB606, HB633, HB707, HB720, HB728, HB733, HB846, HB852, HB856, HB868, HB875, HB129, HB130, HB287, HB489, HB545, HB553, HB555, HB570, HB854, HB952, HB221, HB148, HB331, HB149, HB901

Keywords: HR 46, House Resolution 46, water well drillers, water wells, well drilling, driller licensure, licensing requirements, Department of Conservation and Energy, R.S. 38:3098.1, LAC 46.LXXXIX.507, professional references, two years drilling experience, workforce development, barriers to entry, water infrastructure, natural resources, groundwater, public health, state water resources, occupational licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• This afternoon, this is the Committee on Ethics and Elections of the Florida Senate.
• of Ethics and its enforcement.
• come before the Commission on Ethics.
• We appreciate your support, Chairman Gaetz, for that legislation.
• on Ethics.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:17.839><c> work</c> and then also uh on his legislative work and then also uh on his legislative
• </c> chair of the subcommittee on ethical chair of the subcommittee on ethical conduct.<00:10:32.640>
• I on ethics so that work can proceed.
• legislators legislators um<00:17:08.640><c> sent</c><00:17:08.880><c> out</c><00:17:09.039><c> by</c
• <00:17:15.280><c> audit</c> us who are on the legislative audit us who are on the legislative audit commission

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so it's not really any<00:22:35.600><c> legislative.</c> any legislative. any legislative.
• </c> whom are legislators. whom are legislators.
• legislation? legislation?
• Um I'm wondering if um a legislator legislator legislator feels<01:00:45.599><c> that</c><01:00:45.760
• Our clerk directed me to the website of the Legislative Ethics Committee, where all of the financial

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She's the only member who does not attend legislative caucus meetings.
• She's the only member who does not attend legislative caucus meetings.
• </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
• </c> our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics our temporary rules yes it has an Ethics process<00:35:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> our legislators listen. Thank you. our legislators listen. Thank you.
• </c> state ethics commission, Robert Harris. state ethics commission, Robert Harris.
• Uh the ethics commission. My committee. Uh the ethics commission.
• I'm happy that the uh ethic the state<00:18:11.679><c> ethics</c><00:18:12.080><c> commission</c><00:
• </c> state ethics commission um supports it. state ethics commission um supports it.

Keywords: 910, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a public meeting of the Legislative Ethics Board as we speak.
• And so the question is, is it a violation of the Ethics Act for an attorney legislator to, in their personal
• Is it an ethics violation for a legislator to run a bill that would basically win his client's case?
• Its status, qualifications, and political activities of citizen member of the Legislative Ethics Board
• Kind of get in the way of our Legislative Ethics Board responsibilities, particularly lobbying.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule changes, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and elected chair/president, and Lori was nominated and elected vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and approved two employment disclosures involving Senate and House security employees whose spouses also work in legislative security roles. Jennifer presented proposed rule updates, described as mostly technical, clarifying procedures for continuances, answers to reasonable-cause determinations, hearings before either the board or an ALJ, and discovery in adjudicative proceedings. The board moved to approve the rule amendments, and the motion passed. The draft annual report was also discussed, with members suggesting edits to bios and noting the report’s reference to 478 ethics inquiries. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about whether attorney-legislators may represent clients in matters against state agencies. Members debated whether the opinion should emphasize the constitutional reality of a part-time legislature and the need to distinguish legislative duties from private legal work, or whether it would create unnecessary special treatment for attorneys. Several members raised concerns about conflicts of interest and using legislative status to gain advantage, while others argued the existing ethics rules already cover those situations. In the end, the board decided not to issue the proposed advisory opinion. Jennifer also mentioned Advisory Opinion 2019-5 regarding citizen members of the board and their restrictions, including limits on lobbying. No public testimony was offered, and the board adjourned to executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a public meeting of the Legislative Ethics Board, as we speak.
• And so the question is, is it a violation of the Ethics Act for an attorney legislator to, in their personal
• Is it an ethics violation for a legislator to run a bill that would basically win his client's case?
• Its status, qualifications, and political activities of citizen member of the Legislative Ethics Board
• Ethics Board responsibilities. ...kind of get in the way of our Legislative Ethics Board responsibilities

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule amendments, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and approved as chair, and Lori was nominated and approved as vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and found no ethics issues with two employment disclosure forms involving Senate and House security employees who are married to each other. Jennifer presented proposed rule changes, described as mostly technical updates, including clarifying that either party may request a continuance for good cause, replacing references to a “complaint” with a “reasonable cause determination,” allowing the board to use an ALJ to hear matters and prepare an initial order, and clarifying discovery authority. The board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the rule amendments. Members also reviewed a draft annual report and discussed updating biographies and other details. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about attorney-legislators representing clients in matters against state agencies. Jennifer explained that the draft concluded such representation is not automatically an ethics violation, but cautioned about special privileges, appearances of impropriety, and the need to keep legislative and private legal roles separate. Members debated whether the opinion should be broadened to emphasize that all legislators, regardless of outside employment, must avoid using their office for private advantage. Several members argued the issue is highly fact-specific and that a broad opinion could create unnecessary complexity or special treatment for lawyers. By the end of the discussion, the board appeared to decide not to issue the proposed opinion. The chair also noted a prior advisory opinion on citizen members of the board and reminded members of restrictions on lobbying and related activities. No public testimony was offered, and the board moved toward executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:05.120><c> that</c> new line based on the legislation that new line based on the legislation
• committee was subject to an ethics complaint on that.
• </c> subject to an ethics complaint on that. subject to an ethics complaint on that.
• So thank you, Madam Chair. ethics complaint that was done or at ethics complaint that was done or at
• </c><00:27:06.000><c> conduct</c> of the subcommittee on ethical conduct of the subcommittee on ethical

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• had approved over time that the That a legislator had approved over time, that the legislator then might
• Doesn't mean it's not about legislation.
• This is engaging on our legislative stuff.
• Ask one more thing on this ethics alert.
• So it says official legislative websites that are not the official legislative websites of a legislator

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:

• I changed the direction due to ethical concerns about being forced to participate or being coerced to
• I changed the direction due to ethical concerns about being forced to participate or being coerced to
• And then, of course, are there ethical concerns with those things?
• You may have a rare instance, but our job as legislators is to legislate for the masses, and then we
• job as legislators.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> um, Ethics Committee meeting. um, Ethics Committee meeting.
• The House Ethics Committee is not a court of law and this process is legislative in nature, not judicial
• This is a legislative body and a legislative committee.
• This is a legislative body and a legislative committee.
• And my work ethics stands for itself. about true ethics violations that I about true ethics violations

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, of course, are there ethical concerns with those things?
• </c> held sincerely held religious or ethical held sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs<00:02:
• </c> then of course are there ethical then of course are there ethical concerns<00:04:49.880><c> with
• The speaker added that legislators should legislate for the masses and can later come back and make amendments
• </c><00:14:08.240><c> is</c> instance but our job as legislators is instance but our job as legislators

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 132, a health care conscience-protection measure. Supporters said the bill would protect health care professionals from being forced to participate in procedures or services that violate sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs, while explicitly excluding emergency care. They argued it would help recruit and retain providers, preserve ethical integrity in medicine, and has worked in several other states. Supporters also emphasized that the bill is aimed at procedures or services, not at denying care based on who a patient is, and noted that the bill includes a civil cause of action to give it enforcement teeth. Several supporters described personal experiences. A nurse said lack of conscience protections affected her career choices and limited her path into women’s health. Dr. Warman said he had requested not to perform anesthesia for abortions and later chose non-narcotic pain management because he objected to heavy opioid prescribing, saying conscience protections allow professionals to practice responsibly. Senators asked about examples, the bill’s scope, whether it could be used to discriminate, and which states have similar laws; Mississippi, Florida, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, and Arkansas were named. Questions also focused on the bill’s civil enforcement provisions and whether it could be used against patients based on identity or religion. Opponents warned the bill was overly broad and could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health workers, including clerks, ambulance drivers, pharmacists, nurses, and physicians. Dr. Karen Abrams said it could lead to denial of birth control, Plan B, blood transfusions, and other care, especially in rural areas with few alternatives, and could worsen Kentucky’s provider shortages. David Conway said the bill lacked patient protections, could increase delays and discrimination, and could prevent reassignment of objecting staff. The chair noted there were seven people signed up in opposition, limited testimony to two minutes each, and said the committee would return to the bill after hearing additional opposition and other pending bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• ethics law or rule that defines the various forms of disciplinary action a legislative body may take
• Ethics Committee.
• Several documents state Legislative Ethics Committee may recommend.
• Ethics Committee.
• Several documents state Legislative Ethics Committee may recommend.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:57.960><c> legislative</c> to influence legislate legislative to influence legislate legislative
• . legislation. legislation.
• . legislation. legislation.
• And as your role as a legislator,<00:41:48.160><c> um</c> legislator, um legislator, um that's<00:41:
• The role of a legislator,<00:41:58.880><c> yeah.</c> legislator, yeah. legislator, yeah.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• David Bordelon, Ethics Administrator on behalf of the Board of Ethics.
• Representative, excuse me, David Bordelon, Ethics Administrator for the Board of Ethics, to answer your
• So even people who were under ethics investigation or had violated the ethics rules as they existed before
• Well, the Board of Ethics. Well, anyone can file a complaint with the Board of Ethics on it.
• Well, the Board of Ethics. Anyone can file a complaint with the Board of Ethics on it.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1071, which creates a public records exception for certain aerospace facility and activity records, including blueprints, plans, technical data, operational documents, and security information tied to federally regulated work and contracts with the U.S. Department of War or intelligence agencies. The sponsor and several members emphasized protecting Louisiana aerospace and defense-related work, and the bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then took up HB 181, as amended, which authorizes the legislative auditor to review confidential income tax records to help LDH verify Medicaid eligibility, and, after amendment, SNAP eligibility as well. Supporters said the bill would help identify ineligible recipients, reduce fraud, and improve the state’s error rate to avoid federal penalties; opponents argued tax returns are outdated and unreliable for current eligibility, could create false flags, and might burden or discourage eligible low-income residents. After extensive debate, the committee adopted Amendment Set 2633 and reported HB 181 favorably by a 10-6 vote. Later, the committee considered HB 250, which removes the requirement that immediate family members of appointed board or commission members disclose certain employment information, while leaving existing ethics prohibitions in place. The Ethics Board said the bill would not change substantive conflict-of-interest rules, only the disclosure requirement, and the bill was reported favorably as amended. HB 544, authorizing a citizen’s advisory referendum election, was briefly explained as a nonbinding, petition-driven local ballot question process, but the sponsor deferred it for further consideration and the committee deferred the bill. The committee also heard HB 1036, which clarifies when a group is considered a “committee” for campaign finance purposes by using a more objective spending threshold rather than the current “primary purpose” standard. Ethics officials said the change would give clearer investigative guidance without changing other disclosure rules, and the bill was reported favorably. Finally, HB 210 was amended to address retroactivity concerns in a prior ethics-related provision affecting school board and local governing authority members employed by entities with contracts or business before June 5, 2024; the amendment grandfathered earlier situations while requiring disclosures going forward, and the bill was reported favorably as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• We admit Texas Ethics Commission exhibits 1 through 9.
• Legislative advertising proposes legislation that appears in two different ways.
• A legislative advertising disclosure statement.
• During the session, those priorities are communicated to legislative staff and legislators.
• So the question is, when the legislative...

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we're here for the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission meeting on Tuesday, November the 18th,
• on legislative time.
• These are minor administrative charges again related strictly to the legislative code of ethics and conduct
• These are minor administrative charges again related strictly to the legislative code of ethics and conduct
• These are minor administrative charges again related strictly to the legislative code of ethics and conduct

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on November 18, 2025, approved the October 14 minutes, and then took up five motions in ethics matters 24LEC3 and 24LEC6. Those motions included a renewed motion to dismiss and motion to quash by Representative Daniel Gberg, a renewed motion to compel/sanctions and continuance request by Mr. Jenkins, and competing motions in limine concerning evidence and redaction of deposition transcripts. Vice Chair Mike Schaw was appointed hearing officer for the motion practice, and the commission agreed to hear the motions one at a time in open session. Representative Chris Lily joined later by Zoom. Counsel for Representative Gberg argued the remaining allegations were minor, that the commission lacked key exculpatory materials such as an alleged LRC report, policies, procedures, and training materials, and that the record did not support the ethics charges. She also argued the case had been broadened by extraneous allegations and that the respondent had been unfairly prejudiced. Enforcement counsel responded that he had produced all materials in his possession, that any LRC materials were not in the commission’s custody, and that the commission’s probable-cause findings were based on sworn testimony and affidavits already in the record. He argued the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment should be denied because genuine issues of material fact remained and the commission had already found probable cause on three ethics violations. Commission members questioned both sides about the alleged LRC report and whether it was part of the commission’s record. The chair stated the commission had not relied on any LRC report and had not withheld anything, while another member emphasized that the proceeding concerned alleged violations of the ethics code, not LRC sexual-harassment policy. A commissioner also noted the unusual structure of the proceeding and questioned whether the complaints, taken as true, stated a basis for dismissal. The transcript ends during continued discussion of the standard for dismissal and summary judgment, with no final ruling on the motions captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> are no violations of any ethical rules. are no violations of any ethical rules.
• </c> that there's also a pending ethics that there's also a pending ethics complaint.<00:57:20.640><c
• </c> um the the hearing on the ethical um the the hearing on the ethical complaint,<00:57:56.240><c>
• </c> especially with a pending ethics especially with a pending ethics complaint.<00:58:14.160><c> So
• </c> relating to two pieces of legislation relating to two pieces of legislation that<01:09:17.920><c

Keywords: 1187, senate, all