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reduce fraud, and improve the state’s error rate to avoid federal penalties; opponents argued tax returns are outdated and unreliable for current eligibility, could create false flags, and might burden or discourage eligible low-income residents.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:

• So we would urge you to support this legislation.
• So it's been my experience: if you're an ethical person, you're an ethical person.
• If you're an ethical person, you're an ethical person.
• If you're an ethical person, you're an ethical person.
• Usually SHPO is not brought up in the legislative session.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from February 19 and March 11, then took up Senate Bill 1285, which would make non-public school diplomas, including homeschool diplomas, equivalent to public school diplomas or GEDs for occupational and professional licensing in Idaho. Representative Redmond presented the bill as a fairness measure for homeschool and private school graduates, and Melissa Nash of Homeschool Idaho testified in support. After questions about interstate recognition and diploma designation, the committee voted to send SB 1285 to the House floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then heard House Bill 841, a major prior authorization reform bill aimed at setting clearer standards, timelines, appeal procedures, and reporting requirements for insurers and health plans. Representative Wheeler said the bill was intended to reduce delays in care without dictating prices or benefit design. Testimony from the Idaho Medical Association, a migraine patient, and the Idaho State Dental Association supported the bill as a way to improve transparency and patient access. Despite that support, the motion to send HB 841 to the floor with a due pass recommendation failed on a roll call vote, 9-5, with 4 absent. Next, the committee considered Senate Bill 1262, a narrow insurance investment bill that would simplify a confusing “lesser of” standard by allowing certain miscellaneous investments up to 10% of an insurer’s assets. Representative Ayler’s and a United Heritage Life representative said the change would clarify the code and improve portfolio flexibility; the committee approved the bill and sent it to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 898, which would move the State Historic Preservation Office from the Idaho State Historical Society to the new Office of Species, Minerals, and Energy Coordination. Supporters argued the move would streamline permitting and align related functions, while opponents—including SHPO staff, preservationists, and historians—warned of conflicts of interest, loss of independence, and possible financial impacts to the Historical Society and local preservation programs. After extensive testimony and debate, the committee did not reach a final vote in the portion provided, and discussion continued with a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the chair of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission.
• :15:34.399><c> website</c> Legislative Ethics Commission website Legislative Ethics Commission website
• ethics law our legislators to know the ethics law and<00:20:00.240><c> abide</c><00:20:00.640><c> by
• ethics, that's what code of legislative ethics, that's what we<00:25:55.200><c> would</c><00:25:55.360
• </c><00:36:24.720><c> Ethics</c> appropriate for the Legislative Ethics appropriate for the Legislative

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first established a quorum, approved the minutes from the November 10 meeting, and then approved a large agenda of contracts and related items, with the total agenda amount stated as $359,638,393.88. Most items were approved without objection, but two contracts were pulled for discussion: attorney general panel counsel contingency fee contracts and a Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission personal services contract. For the attorney general’s office, Chris Lewis explained that the contracts were panel counsel contingency fee agreements, with 14 qualified awards from 16 applicants. He said the contracts were contingency-based, so no money would be paid unless cases were successful, and that the fee structure worked out to roughly 5% under the statutory waterfall. Senators asked about the size of the contracts, whether the terms were uniform, why no Kentucky firms were among the awardees, and how the public should understand the large dollar figures. Lewis said one Kentucky firm applied but was disqualified for a late submission, other Kentucky firms had inquired but did not apply, and local firms could still work with national firms on cases. The committee then approved the contracts. The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission contract drew more extensive questioning. Commission representatives said they had previously had a contract disapproved because the proper process was not followed, so they used an RFI process posted on the state and commission websites for at least three weeks. They received one applicant, a Kentucky firm, and set the rate at $125 per hour. Members questioned whether the commission was acting beyond its ethics mission, whether staff were helping draft complaints against legislators, and whether the commission was taking on a prosecutorial or human-resources role. The commission said its role is limited to enforcing the legislative code of ethics, providing advisory guidance, and following the formal complaint process; it does not pursue matters outside that code. Members also raised concerns about the earlier procurement misstep and the commission’s credibility, and the commission apologized, said it had corrected the process, and pledged to comply going forward. The committee then approved the contract.

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislation passed in the last session allows for reduced...
• With that, is the intent of this legislation? I completely agree.
• Because of the lateness of the legislative hour, this is a Senate bill.
• Well, of course, I had a Texas Ethics Commission bill.
• Will the Texas Ethics Commission... go back and look at these folks?

Bills: SB128, SB203, SB205, SB317, SB393, SB397, SB510, SB582, SB731, SB801, SB867, SB913, SB1071, SB1073, SB1086, SB1087, SB1163, SB1250, SB1285, SB1310, SB1444, SB1483, SB1553, SB1556, SB1723, SB1782, SB1835, SB1861, SB1897, SB1903, SB1950, SB2043, SB2063, SB2082, SB2133, SB2137, SB2260, SB2297, SB2298, SB2334, SB2344, SB2403, SB2446, SB2522, SB2532, SB2549, SB2566, SB2600, SB2619, SB2637, SB2655, SB2688, SB2717, SB2785, SB2790, SB2794, SB2841, SB2847, SB2857, SB2891, SB2919, SB2943, SB2972, SB3047, SB3052, SB3053, SB3057, SB3059, HJR1, HB9, HB26, HB37, HB116, HB334, HB554, HB913, HB1109, HB1151, HB1899, HB2081, HB2809, HB2890, HB2970, HB3012, HB3307, HB3809, HB5092, SB17, SB314, SB455, SB509, SB761, SB963, SB1023, SB1968, SB2122, SB2371, SB2420, SB2544, SB1, SB260, SB1506, SB1637, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB2943, SB510, SB1835, SB1950, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB2309, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1359, SB1234, SB2926, SB2972, SB2841, SB1528, SB2891, SB1854, SB317, SB2532, SB1250, SB2082, SB1285, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB2460, SB2785, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB2994, SB2747, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1861, SB2043, SB1367, SB2857, SB128, SB3058, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3048, SB3052, SB3053, SB3036, SB3057, SB3056, SB3043, SB3050, SB3063, SB3047, SB3035, SB2446, SB1790, SB1778, SB2847, SB2619, SB203, SB3061, SB2600, SB2799, SB2790, SB2688, SB2515, SB1230, SB2522, SB2639, SB2403, SB2459, SB3051, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB582, SB2617, SB2751, SB2928, SB1310, SB2566, SB2344, SB1897, SB1749, SB1361, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1782, SB1705, SB2696, SB1944, SB2215, SB644, SB1232, SB2850, HJR1, HB1109, HB1130, HB1689, HB2884, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB3012, HB1327, HB109, HB1238, HB2890, HB9, HB2081, HB4215, HB2970, HB37, HB1899, HB3809, HB334, HB554, HB1593, HB2607, HB3526, HB3810, HB5092, HB388, HB2809, HB1151, HB913, HB3307, HB879, HB116, HB12, HB2703, HB1610, HB1615, HB1620, HB30, HB21, HB2712, HB2692, HB1633, HB1318, HB685, HB630, HB4753, HB2742, HB303, HB198, HB1535, HB762, HB148, HB1520, HB5061, HB2286, HB1606, HB1041, HB132, HB11, HCR7, HCR75, HCR86, HCR92, HCR93, HCR126, SB582, SB1163, SB2344, SB2403, SB2446, SB2600, SB2785, SB3047, HB334, HB554, HB1109, HB2081, HB3809, SB510, SB1835, SB1950, SB2943, SB1073, SB1310, SB2532, SB2619, SB2847, SB2972, SR509, SR512, SJR87, SB3072, SB3073, HB49, HB229, HB361, HB700, HB796, HB1128, HB1534, HB1661, HB1803, HB1837, HB1866, HB2149, HB2282, HB2294, HB2434, HB2440, HB2761, HB2785, HB2867, HB3057, HB3062, HB3134, HB3185, HB3225, HB3233, HB3358, HB3388, HB3421, HB3619, HB3658, HB3675, HB3687, HB3697, HB3743, HB3745, HB3787, HB3848, HB3866, HB3940, HB3984, HB4176, HB4205, HB4226, HB4429, HB4437, HB4463, HB4506, HB4730, HB4735, HB4752, HB4813, HB4903, HB4904, HB5033, HB5057, HB5129, HB5137, HB5138, HB5149, HB5153, HB5155, HB5195, HB5196, HB5200, HB5224, HB5294, HB5339, HB5394, HCR108, SJR87, SB3072, SB3073, HB49, HB229, HB361, HB700, HB796, HB1128, HB1534, HB1661, HB1803, HB1837, HB1866, HB2149, HB2282, HB2294, HB2434, HB2440, HB2761, HB2785, HB2867, HB3057, HB3062, HB3134, HB3185, HB3225, HB3233, HB3358, HB3388, HB3421, HB3619, HB3658, HB3675, HB3687, HB3697, HB3743, HB3745, HB3787, HB3848, HB3866, HB3940, HB3984, HB4176, HB4205, HB4226, HB4429, HB4437, HB4463, HB4506, HB4730, HB4735, HB4752, HB4813, HB4903, HB4904, HB5033, HB5057, HB5129, HB5137, HB5138, HB5149, HB5153, HB5155, HB5195, HB5196, HB5200, HB5224, HB5294, HB5339, HB5394, HCR108

Keywords: hospital reporting, child abuse, neglect, administrative penalty, medical ethics, child protection, student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, fetal development, health curriculum, public schools, middle school health education, grade 7, grade 8, State Board of Education, school health advisory council, Texas Education Code

Transcript Highlights:

• David Bordlawn, our ethics administrator. Mr. Bordlawn, Ethics Administrator. Thank you. Mr.
• David Bordlawn, Ethics Administrator on behalf of the Louisiana Board of Ethics. Thank you, Mr.
• David Bordlawn, Ethics Administrator.
• You've got legislative continuance.
• That legislation.

Summary: The committee took up several House bills dealing mainly with ethics, elections, and legislative procedure. HB 858 by Rep. Riser, creating a public records exception for GPS data on wildlife and aquatic life held by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, was reported favorably without objection. HB 661, which expands existing nepotism exceptions to allow school board members and superintendents to hire immediate family members as paraprofessionals and janitors, drew support from members concerned about staffing shortages in schools; the Ethics Administrator noted the board’s concern that repeated exceptions erode the nepotism rules, but the bill was still reported favorably without objection. HB 359, a cleanup bill on the death of a non-major-party primary candidate, was also reported favorably without objection. HB 258, which clarifies that volunteer firefighters are not subject to dual office-holding restrictions and allows retired judges to serve on certain boards while still being available for ad hoc judicial service, passed on an 8-4 roll call vote. Rep. Newell’s HB 705, which would strengthen contempt of the legislature penalties and add provisions addressing disorderly conduct and interference with legislative proceedings, generated the most debate. Members raised concerns about the proposed jump in fines from $1,000 to $50,000, due process, and the breadth of language that could be read to cover ordinary advocacy or passionate testimony. After discussion, the author agreed the bill needed more work, and it was voluntarily deferred in committee. The committee also heard HB 177, allowing retired court reporters to return on a contractual basis to address shortages, which was amended and then reported favorably without objection. HB 238, which would remove a waiting period and population-based restriction for former school board members or certified psychologists to return to work in school districts, prompted a lengthy debate about the judiciary and per diem rules because of related ethics concerns raised in the discussion; the author ultimately asked to voluntarily defer the bill, and the committee agreed. Finally, HB 398, which would cap lodging, meal, and incidental expense reimbursements for state officials and employees at GSA rates and limit emergency exceptions, drew sharp opposition from several members and a retired judge who argued the current judicial per diem is reasonable and tied to safety and travel needs. The author said he would work on amendments and voluntarily deferred HB 398. The committee then began discussion of HB 752, which would move the timing of regular legislative sessions into joint rule and change the session start/end dates, with the author explaining it was intended to give the Legislature more flexibility without needing constitutional amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is something that's really tied into our ethics.
• We'll come back to the State Ethics Commission. Mr.
• So the plaintiff is the State Ethics Commission.
• My next question is for the ethics.
• Department of Justice and the Ethics Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair calls this meeting of the Texas Ethics Commission.
• Other than ethics commission members. Yeah.
• The adjusted thresholds are codified in the Texas Ethics Commission rules.
• As salary, the per diem is the property of the legislator.
• We will discuss the status of the Texas Ethics Commission legislative recommendations, the Sunset Advisory

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:23.360><c> Yes,</c> changes to the code of ethics. Yes, changes to the code of ethics.
• </c> ethical misconduct. ethical misconduct.
• forward in the next legislative the next forward in the next legislative session<00:10:34.800><c> that
• </c><00:10:48.399><c> code</c> recommended changes to the ethics code recommended changes to the ethics
• Now that doesn't mean the ethics code.

Keywords: Part two will take place after first executive session., 958, all

Summary: The commission first returned from executive session and noted that discussions there were preliminary only and no final agency action was taken. It then approved the budget report, which staff said was within year-to-date budget parameters. Members discussed recommended changes to the code of ethics. Staff proposed four items: defining and prohibiting sexual harassment as ethical misconduct; two housekeeping changes related to lobbyist registration notice and campaign contribution language; and a possible reduction of the post-service waiting period for former legislators to become lobbyists from two years to one year. Members agreed the lobbying cooling-off period was a broader General Assembly issue and voted to recommend only the first three changes, leaving the fourth for later review. The chair noted the July 1 deadline for submitting ethics-code recommendations to the LRC. The commission also approved renewal of a $100,000 contract with Casey Bailey and Mains for Robert Jenkins to continue serving as enforcement counsel, with hourly rates of $125 for the attorney and $40 for the paralegal. Finally, it approved a 3% cost-of-living pay increase for General Counsel Steven Pium, discussed possible conference attendance and informal opinions, and adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• AI literacy, critical engagement, and empowered ethics.
• A number of you have talked about the ethical use of AI.
• Legislators, faculty, and students must see exactly how AI dollars are being spent.
• What counts as ethical use?
• And we know the ethical use of these technologies is paramount and important.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• This piece of legislation passed the Senate unanimously with bipartisan support.
• Every one of our counties is impacted or can be impacted by, by this piece of legislation.
• And then two, I never voted for the code of ethics 1010.5 rules.
• I did not sign up for the code of ethics 105. This was imposed upon us in November of 2020.
• Which were not required by law in 1913 when the code of ethics began.

Transcript Highlights:

• This can also happen to legislators, and that is real serious.
• And then, two, I never voted for the Code of Ethics 10.5 rules.
• The director filed an ethics complaint against me, claiming...
• The ethics hearing lasted just 45 minutes—45 minutes to years of work.
• So what happened to me is I was taking an ethics class that was required.

Bills: SB1361, SB2105, SB2690, SB2713, SCR38, SB2637, SB2881

Keywords: SB 1361, Texas disaster recovery loan, small business loan, micro-business loan, community development financial institution, CDFI, economic disaster assistance, post-disaster financing, business recovery fund, Texas Economic Development Bank, zero-interest loan, working capital, payroll support, health benefits, job retention, declared disaster, small business relief, microenterprise, franchise exclusion, private equity-backed business

Transcript Highlights:

• She also doesn't participate in legislative caucus discussions.
• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• The Ethics Committee is pretty much on pause until the summer because the Ethics Committee kept on delaying
• </c> due process needs to have a full ethics due process needs to have a full ethics hearing<00:05:15.960

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And... ...pieces of legislation passed in many, many years.
• may comment on any other legislation in a newsletter.'
• It refers to the immediately preceding legislative session.
• Okay, so it's an ethics alert is what we're leaning toward.
• , ethics advisors, ethicizers, thank you.

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• The statute provides a legislator with broad authority to make those decisions.
• And the board encourages members to continue to ask ethics advisors.
• It encourages members to continue to ask ethics advisors if it's a good idea to write a letter.
• I think this advisory, putting it all in one place, really helps, will help the ethics advisors.
• I think this advisory, putting it all in one place, really helps, will help the ethics advisors.

Summary: The board approved the October 15 meeting minutes and then reviewed three employment disclosure forms involving staff or spouses employed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board and the Department of Corrections. The disclosures were approved unanimously. The board also adopted a proposed rule change to conform board rules to a prior statutory amendment that separated fines from costs. Members then discussed a draft advisory opinion interpreting the phrase “letter of recommendation” under the ethics statute. The draft would read the term broadly, allow legislators to decide when to write such letters when requested by a constituent, and reaffirm that it remains appropriate to use state resources for job references or scholarships for individuals the legislator has supervised or worked closely with at the legislature, as well as for certain gubernatorial appointments. Members generally supported the draft, but asked for possible clarification of the phrase “work closely with,” and approved the opinion as drafted with that caveat. The board also reviewed proposed future meeting dates, noting a concern that January 19 falls on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and may need to be changed. No final action was taken on the dates during the public portion. The meeting then moved toward executive session after adjourning the public portion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's call this public portion of our Legislative Ethics Board to order. Is TVW already signed in?
• RCW 42.52.187(1) basically says it's not a violation of the Ethics Act for a legislator to send or email
• It says it's not a violation of the Ethics Act for a legislator to send or email a letter of recommendation
• Ethics Board was formed.
• And so, and we don't have anything else in any opinions written by the Legislative Ethics Board that

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board approved the minutes from its September 8, 2025 meeting and reported that there were no employment disclosure forms. The board then discussed whether RCW 42.52.187(1) permits legislators to write letters of recommendation in a broader range of situations, including citizenship, clemency/pardon, immigration waivers, scholarships, and appointments. Members generally favored a broad reading for constituent-requested letters, while staff noted their existing advice had been narrower and suggested drafting an advisory opinion to clarify the definition and scope of “letter of recommendation.” The board also considered whether the statute’s reference to commemorations or celebrations of “persons who are not current legislators” allows use of state resources to recognize entities such as the Mariners or Seahawks. Members discussed whether “person” includes organizations under the Ethics Act’s definition, and the consensus leaned toward a plain-language reading that would allow posts about teams and other non-legislator entities, though some members suggested the language may need cleanup in the future. A third item addressed a previously retired advisory opinion concerning legislators who are attorneys and represent clients before state agencies. Staff proposed republishing or updating the opinion with current citations, but several members expressed concern that the old opinion could be read too narrowly or as implying legislators cannot do outside legal work involving agencies. The board agreed the issue needed more refinement and deferred further action to a future meeting. There was no public testimony beyond a brief check-in from Jerry Cornfield, and the meeting adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair calls this meeting with the Texas Ethics Commission at 9:10 a.m. with the executive director, please
• Um, we want to recognize the contributions of three former chairs of the Texas Ethics Commission.
• , the best ethics bill in the history of the Texas legislature.
• Texas Ethics Commission at 12:05 p.m. Will the executive director please call the roll.
• In the last legislative session, the General Appropriations Act gave the ethics Commission the authority