House Ethics Committee asks staff to draft hearing procedures as March 4 deadline approaches for Rep. Weinberg

The House Committee on Ethics met to clarify procedures after it found probable cause on portions of a complaint involving Representative Weinberg and to direct Office of Legislative Legal Services staff to draft guidelines for possible next steps.

Christy Chase of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the committee it had notified Rep. Weinberg on Feb. 25 of the committee’s findings and that "he had 7 days or until March 4 to request an evidentiary hearing." Chase said that under House Rule 49(D) a member who requests a hearing is entitled to appear, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and be represented by counsel, and that the committee is empowered to issue subpoenas under the subpoena process in Joint Rule 33. She added that a hearing must commence within 14 days of a request (meaning a March 4 request would require a hearing to begin by March 18).

Members discussed what standard and format such a hearing should follow. Representative Woodrow emphasized fairness to the accused and asked that the committee make clear "what type of burden" a member would face in deciding whether to request a hearing. Several members — including Representative Mabry and Representative Soper — said the hearing is not criminal in nature and noted the committee had already applied a probable-cause determination during its investigation; Soper said "we are still on probable cause" and described an evidentiary hearing principally as an opportunity for the member to challenge the committee’s earlier finding.

Committee members and counsel sketched a likely hearing format similar to a civil tribunal: witnesses would be called to provide sworn testimony, committee members would ask direct questions, the accused (or counsel) could cross-examine, and then call witnesses in turn. Representative Woodrow and others said the committee should not require a prosecutor or plaintiff’s attorney to present the case; rather, the committee panel would lead questioning of witnesses. Chase said the committee may subpoena witnesses the member requests, but that authority is exercised by the committee and not automatically granted to the accused.

Members emphasized strict scope guardrails tied to the original complaint. The chair and counsel advised limiting testimony and questioning to the allegations that triggered the probable-cause finding so the matter does not expand beyond what the complaint alleges. The committee also discussed practical points: testimony should be sworn, the chair may stop testimony that veers outside scope, the panel can decide whether to permit leading questions for efficiency, and scheduling may require sessions outside regular hours depending on availability.

Chase noted possible outcomes after a hearing: the committee could dismiss the complaint, or make recommendations to the House that may include admonition, reprimand, censure or expulsion; if no hearing is requested the committee likewise may decide whether to dismiss the matter or forward recommendations to leadership based on the record it has. The committee asked OLLS to gather procedural templates and examples from other bodies and to think about a process for identifying and soliciting witnesses. The chair adjourned the committee after directing staff to prepare draft guidelines.

The committee did not take any formal votes during this meeting; members asked staff to return drafts and options for the committee to consider before the March 4 deadline.