Senate Committee on Ethics opens review of complaint against Sen. Hawkes Lewis; members debate scope and next steps

The Senate Committee on Ethics met in February to begin reviewing a complaint filed Jan. 10 by Haley Shea McMoore on behalf of five staffers alleging workplace misconduct by Sen. Hawkes Lewis, the committee chair said.

The complaint names five complainants — Lee Davis, Luke Dozier, Luis Echeverri, Lacey McGinty and Molly Stawanoga — and attaches a workplace-expectations complaint and supporting documents. At the meeting, committee members focused on separating complaints about management style from alleged violations of law, rules or policy, discussed how campaign-finance and nondisclosure issues intersect with their jurisdiction, and flagged concerns about possible retaliation by office leadership.

Why it matters: The committee must determine whether the evidence meets the standard to proceed under the Senate’s ethics rules and related workplace policies. Committee members said the matter raises institutional questions about employee protections, nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), campaign-finance allegations and whether a pattern of conduct exists that would violate Senate rules.

Committee discussion and evidence

Madam Chair opened the meeting by describing the committee’s plan to review the complaint, the Jan. 31 written answer from Sen. Hawkes Lewis and the evidence compiled so far. The complaint was described as submitted on Jan. 10 by Haley Shea McMoore “on behalf of several individuals,” and the chair listed the five named complainants and asked members for comments.

Senator Carson urged the panel to divide the allegations into two categories: management-style complaints and specific allegations that would constitute violations of law, regulation or Senate rules. “I want to know which of these items are violations of a law, of a regulation, of a senate rule,” Carson said, adding that campaign-finance matters are also being reviewed by the Secretary of State and that the committee should decide whether to coordinate with that office or reach its own conclusions.

Senator Weissman said several allegations in the complaint — wage-related claims, campaign-finance concerns and NDAs — could implicate Senate Rule 41 (cited at the meeting as paragraph 8.5) and described the material as indicative of a “pattern in practice.” He recommended applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine whether a pattern violates Rule 41.

Members repeatedly flagged fear of retaliation as a recurring theme in the complaint. The chair read aloud the complaint’s request that the committee “take into consideration the affected staffers” and noted multiple requests by individuals to remain anonymous “in fear of retaliation and protection of their current careers.”

Legal and policy references

Senator Weissman and others referenced the committee’s authority under Rule 43 (committee on ethics) to receive complaints alleging violations of Senate rules and certain constitutional provisions. The transcript includes citations to “section 40 of article 5 of the state constitution” as an example of potentially relevant constitutional language.

Deputy Director Christy Chase, Office of Legislative Legal Services, told the committee that the workplace-harassment policy (referred to during the meeting as Rule 38 or the harassment policy) “specifically says the General Assembly prohibits retaliation against an individual for filing a complaint about an alleged violation of this policy.” Chase quoted the policy’s section that bars retaliation for filing complaints, assisting a complaint or participating in an investigation.

Chair, response and exhibits

The committee reviewed Sen. Hawkes Lewis’s Jan. 31 answer, described by the chair as a 14-page response with accompanying exhibits. The chair summarized the exhibits: the 2025 legislative-aide position announcement; a letter from Denise Walker (identified in the answer as a registered campaign agent and part-time aide/volunteer); letters from Tara Mastracchio and Anna McLean; a letter from former intern Kelsey Oliver; a letter from a former aide who wished to remain anonymous; an aide confidentiality agreement; and a compiled set of news articles assembled by OLLS, including pieces dated Jan. 16, 2024, and March 12, 2024.

Committee members said the senator’s response did not resolve key questions. “It certainly doesn’t clarify anything for me,” Senator Roberts said, describing the response as “jarring” because it both requests an ethics investigation and also argues the complaint “should have never been assigned to an ethics committee.” Senator Roberts and others said the response shifts between disputing the complaint as politically motivated and addressing specific allegations.

Senator Weissman pointed to a passage in the response that he characterized as an “almost casual passing” reference to possible defamation claims and said the answer’s effort to place some material under public-records arguments (CORA) was not immediately persuasive.

Document handling and requests

Deputy Director DeCicco told the committee that staff had processed all documents received through the previous day and that additional documents could arrive. DeCicco said Senate President Garcia reported he did not have responsive documents to the chair’s request. Several members asked staff to search for referenced Google documents in earlier evidence batches (identified in the meeting as Feb. 5 batch items Rodriguez 7, Rodriguez 8 and Belkin 9), including any offline copies, because some links returned “no longer exists.” Senator Weissman flagged those missing documents as potentially material.

Next steps and schedule

The committee scheduled further meetings next week and planned a longer session to “dig in” to the evidence: a two-hour meeting was set for Tuesday, Feb. 18, with additional sessions listed Feb. 19 and Feb. 20. The chair said the committee will use upcoming meetings to review the evidence more deeply and determine whether there is sufficient basis to proceed before the committee’s February deadline.

Concerns raised about public impact

Several members cautioned about the public nature of documents already filed and the potential institutional consequences of the tone of the senator’s public response. “The document I don’t think anywhere contains any sort of apology even,” Senator Roberts said, noting the response will be read widely inside and outside the building and could have downstream impacts on public confidence in the institution.

What the meeting did not decide

The committee did not take any formal vote at the session. Members discussed requests for additional documents, jurisdictional questions regarding campaign-finance complaints (which are also under Secretary of State review), and how to apply the workplace-harassment policy and Senate ethics rules. No final determinations were made on whether the complaint meets the threshold to proceed to a formal investigation.

Ending

The committee closed the session with plans to reconvene and to use the next meeting to begin detailed evidence review prior to the committee’s February deadline.