Oral argument held on Rep. Tara Simmons’ summary-judgment motion in legislative ethics case

At a May 20, 2026, oral-argument session before the Washington State Legislative Ethics Board and the Office of Administrative Hearings, Administrative Law Judge TJ Martin convened argument on a summary-judgment motion filed by respondent Representative Tara Simmons in docket 401645. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentraut appeared for board staff; Doug McKinley represented Simmons.

McKinley, speaking for Simmons, said the board’s pleadings fail to allege a necessary element: that Simmons personally received a distinct benefit from the contested legislative acts. “Where you run afoul of the legislative ethics act is when you benefit yourself,” McKinley told the board, arguing that funding secured for Simmons’ employer, EEC, does not by itself show a personal financial interest such as a raise, bonus or continued employment.

McKinley also challenged a contract-based allegation, saying the disputed contract language was a typographical error and noting affidavits from Simmons and an EEC executive that, he said, demonstrate the contract did not hire Simmons to lobby legislators. He further argued a campaign-surplus donation by Simmons to a nonprofit (AEJG) to fund a position was a permitted personal donation and not an official act, and he characterized the AEJG–EEC subcontract dispute as an administrative resolution made by Chris Stanley at the Administrative Office of the Courts, not by Simmons.

Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Eisentraut, urged denial of summary judgment. Eisentraut said staff’s response and exhibits allege sufficient facts to establish violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act, pointing to RCW 42.52.020 (prohibiting interests that conflict with official duties) and RCW 42.52.070 (prohibiting use of position to secure special privileges). She told the board that Simmons’ recorded involvement in a 2024 proviso that directed money to EEC, a description in EEC job materials that Simmons would “facilitate connections” with legislators and stakeholders, and text-message exchanges that referenced official acts together plausibly show an indirect interest or use of office that survives dismissal at the summary-judgment stage.

Eisentraut told the board: “Board staff have sufficiently outlined how the facts established that Representative Simmons violated this provision in a couple of different ways,” and argued the combination of the proviso, the subcontract issue, and the texts are appropriately considered together at this stage.

Board member Representative Hackney asked whether the complaint, as pled, alleges a special benefit to Simmons sufficient to deny summary judgment. Eisentraut replied that the statutes allow the board to consider indirect or nonfinancial interests and that staff had identified facts that, if credited, would require further factfinding.

In a brief rebuttal, McKinley reiterated that existing board precedent allows legislators to secure funds that benefit an employer absent allegations that the legislator personally received a distinct benefit, and he warned that adopting a broader bright-line rule after the fact would be unfairly punitive to Simmons alone.

Judge Martin closed oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. The board did not announce a ruling at the hearing; Judge Martin said that if the board finds genuine disputes of material fact remain, the matter should go to an evidentiary hearing. The session adjourned at 10:43 a.m.

Next steps: the legislative ethics board will deliberate and determine whether to (a) deny the summary-judgment motion and set the case for an evidentiary hearing, or (b) grant summary judgment if it finds no genuine dispute of material fact. The board did not take a final vote during the oral-argument session.