Vito Barbieri — Responded that the existing rule's public nature pressures an accused member to resign before a public hearing.
Vito Barbieri — Explained that the public nature of the existing rule may pressure an accused member to resign before a public trial.
Vito Barbieri — Argued that counsel would not change the outcome and referenced the Fifth Amendment.
Vito Barbieri — Said invoking the Fifth Amendment or involving counsel could lead to expulsion and urged considering how complaints reach the committee.
Vito Barbieri — Disagreed that counsel is necessary in a secret ethics hearing.
Vito Barbieri — Argued that secret ethics hearings do not require counsel protections and that members should speak frankly.
Vito Barbieri — Responded that perjury is a legal crime and should be handled by the judiciary, not the House ethics process.
Vito Barbieri — Argued that the Attorney General, executive branch, and judiciary should not be involved in an internal House matter.
Vito Barbieri — Was addressed by a member identified in the transcript as Representative Schurz/Barrier, who asked whether the rule could allow counsel.
Vito Barbieri — Was asked whether allowing counsel would be a hard stop or open for committee consideration.
Vito Barbieri — Vito Barbieri was invited to respond to negative testimony and addressed concerns about the ethics process and public disclosure. He argued that the committee should decide whether the press is an honest arbiter of accusations and suggested the rules could be changed to make the proceedings public. He then concluded his remarks and returned the floor to the chair.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri responded to the discussion by clarifying that the committee does not put anyone under oath, noting from his experience that this has never been done and indicating that other ethics members could comment if needed.
Phil Hart — The speaker recalls that when they were first elected, Phil Hart was their seatmate and had an ethics complaint filed against him. The speaker uses Hart’s experience as an example of how a public ethics accusation can become a prolonged and difficult public issue, noting that Hart spent two years dealing with it.
Marco Erickson — Marco Erickson is called on during the meeting, and the exchange continues immediately with a brief remark about him, keeping the focus on the same short interaction.
Marco Erickson — During the vote sequence, Representative Erickson was called and responded 'No' on the amended substitute motion, and later also voted 'No' on the original motion.
John Gannon — Raised concern that members may wonder what procedures are being followed if the rules are not public.
John Gannon — His concern about unpublished procedures is continued.
John Gannon — His question about procedure is directly answered.
John Gannon — Asked a follow-up question about the procedures and whether the accused can be represented by counsel.
John Gannon — Asked whether the accused can be represented by counsel.
John Gannon — Asked whether the committee should have legal counsel from the Attorney General's Office or private practitioners on issues like perjury.
John Gannon — Suggested the committee may need legal counsel on issues such as perjury.
John Gannon — Argued the committee should understand the legal definition of perjury before proceeding.
John Gannon — Suggested the conduct might still be handled as conduct unbecoming under Mason's, depending on the legal definition of perjury.
John Gannon — Asked whether the legal definition of perjury should control.
John Gannon — Asked whether the current rule's probable cause requirement already provides enough confidentiality.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon is central to a continuous discussion of House Rule 27. He moves to hold the rule in committee and explains his position, arguing for the right to counsel and noting the technical nature of perjury in this context. He is then questioned by another member and later referenced as the sponsor of a proposal intended to allow the next step in the process.
John Gannon — Representative John Gannon moved to adopt Rule 11-1001-2501.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon questioned the source and drafting of the artificial intelligence evidence rules, asking whether they were based on a template or newly written. He then followed up by pointing to a specific rule on admission and advance notice to the presiding officer, continuing his inquiry into how the AI-related evidence provisions operate.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is referenced as part of the committee’s discussion on AI rules and site visits, including a queued question before the committee had to leave for the floor. The exchange culminates with Representative Gannon speaking directly, arguing that administrative hearings are informal and that AI use should not be discouraged.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel raised concerns that statements made in an Ethics Committee proceeding could later be used in civil or criminal proceedings, potentially harming the person involved. She pressed whether the process could adversely affect someone without counsel present and noted that, even if a person believes they are innocent, it may still be prudent to have an attorney at their side to guard against future legal fallout.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel expressed tentative support for the current substitute motion while voicing concerns about fairness and counsel, then recalled a prior quasi-judicial proceeding in which witnesses were placed under oath and the proceedings were recorded, using that memory to inform her comments.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel participated in a series of roll-call votes, voting no on the amended substitute motion, then yes on the substitute motion, and yes on the original motion.
Cornel Rasor — Addressed by Representative Gannon in the discussion of confidentiality and probable cause.
Cornel Rasor — Explained that the probable cause step follows a confidential trial and precedes making the matter public.
Cornel Rasor — Continued explaining that the public hearing follows a prior confidential determination that a breach occurred.
Cornel Rasor — Addressed by Representative Matthias in the transparency discussion.
Cornel Rasor — Responded that the current rule was adopted after an earlier incident and that there have since been two very public spectacles.
Cornel Rasor — Responded that the right to counsel applies to criminal or judicial matters, not House procedure.
Cornel Rasor — Addressed by Representative Cannon in the discussion of a first and second trial.
Chris Mathias — Took the floor and questioned whether reducing transparency is the right response.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias was identified in the discussion, expressed opposition to advancing the measure due to secrecy and transparency concerns, then recorded votes of no on the amended substitute motion and yes on both the substitute motion and the original motion.
Chris Mathias — Representative Gannon raised concerns about the AI rule giving the presiding officer too much discretion without a clear standard and was addressed by Mr. Nichols in response. The discussion continued with Gannon asking for examples of AI evidence or AI-prepared evidence encountered in administrative hearings.
David Cannon — Acknowledged the work on the proposal and questioned whether the accused can control whether the matter becomes public.
David Cannon — Representative Gannon was called during the roll call and responded to a series of votes, first voting no on the amended substitute motion, then voting yes on the substitute motion, and finally voting yes on the original motion.
Ken Burgess — Ken Burgess was invited to testify and then introduced himself, stating that he is not an attorney and that he is representing the Idaho Press Club and its First Amendment Committee.
Mr. Burgess — Thanked by the chair after his testimony concluded.
Heather Scott — Moved to send House Rule 27 to the floor with a due pass.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the amended substitute motion.
Heather Scott — Voted no on the substitute motion.