Senate ethics committee opens review of complaint against Senator Hawkes Lewis, requests records and schedules follow-ups

The Senate Committee on Ethics met Feb. 11 to begin a formal review of a complaint filed Jan. 10 on behalf of five individuals and to consider a Jan. 31 written response from Senator Hawkes Lewis.

The complaint, filed by Haley Shea McMoore on behalf of Lee Davis, Luke Dozier, Luis Echeverri, Lacey McGinty and Molly Stawanoga, raises several categories of concern that committee members described as ranging from management-style complaints to allegations of wage theft, campaign finance violations, use of nondisclosure agreements and retaliation. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the need to separate workplace-style concerns from matters requiring legal adjudication.

"The General Assembly prohibits retaliation against an individual for filing a complaint about an alleged violation of this policy," Deputy Director Christy Chase of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the committee while explaining the workplace-harassment policy’s anti‑retaliation provision.

Committee members said some allegations fall more properly to other fora. Senator Carson urged the group to identify "which of these items are violations of a law, of a regulation, of a senate rule," and questioned whether campaign‑finance matters should be handled in coordination with the Secretary of State’s office rather than by the committee alone. Senator Weissman said the packet of materials alleges a pattern of conduct and suggested the committee apply a preponderance‑of‑evidence standard to determine whether Senate Rule 41 (paragraph 8.5) has been violated.

The committee reviewed Senator Hawkes Lewis’s 14‑page written answer and exhibits, which included a 2025 legislative‑aide position announcement, letters from current and former aides and an aide confidentiality agreement described in the record as Exhibit 7. The chair read passages from the answer that criticized the complaint and the Political Workers Guild (PWG); the committee noted the letter’s tone and the absence of an apology to staff who said they were harmed. The chair also quoted from the answer: "I am being dragged through the mud for political ends with false allegations," language committee members found striking in a document that will be publicly viewable.

Director DeCicco told the panel that staff had processed all documents received up to the previous day and that additional materials could still be submitted. Committee members identified missing or inaccessible items referenced in earlier document batches — including items labelled Rodriguez 7 and Belkin 9 and several Google Doc links cited in the Feb. 5 materials — and asked staff to search for any offline copies and to produce any additional responsive documents.

No formal action or vote was taken at the Feb. 11 meeting. The committee scheduled additional meetings to continue evidence review and to work toward a decision: Feb. 18 from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., Feb. 19 from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m., and Feb. 20 from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. The chair said the committee must consider an unspecified February deadline and expected to decide whether to meet again on the 18th depending on progress.

The committee separated discussion items into three categories: (1) allegations that are primarily managerial or interpersonal; (2) allegations that implicate statutory or administrative processes, such as campaign‑finance complaints that may be active before the Secretary of State; and (3) allegations that may implicate Senate rules or the workplace‑harassment policy, including claims of retaliation. Committee members stressed the importance of verifying documentary evidence and locating referenced files that were not accessible in the initial production.

The session closed with no findings and with staff directed to continue processing and producing records and to prepare for the scheduled follow‑up meetings.