Kansas House select committee meets to set procedures for complaint against Rep. Leah Howell

A newly appointed Select Investigative Committee of the Kansas House of Representatives met for the first time on Oct. 27 to organize procedures for an inquiry into a complaint filed by Representative Leah Howell and to set preliminary deadlines. The panel’s chair said the committee would not consider the complaint’s substance at the organizational meeting.

The meeting focused on the rules that will govern any investigation. “Pursuant to Article 49 of the House Rules, the Speaker of the House has appointed this Select Investigative Committee,” the chair said, adding that the committee’s purpose at the session was organizational and procedural. The chair warned that “we will not be discussing the substance of the complaint at this meeting.”

Why the committee’s decisions matter: under Article 2, Section 8 of the Kansas Constitution and House Rules (Article 49, sections 49.01–49.03), the House alone has authority to reprimand, censure or expel its members. The committee’s choices on procedure — what evidence to admit, how long witnesses may speak and whether to rely on parliamentary authorities such as Mason’s Manual — will shape how the inquiry proceeds and what opportunities the member targeted by the complaint will have to respond.

Gordon Self, the Revisor of Statutes and the committee’s legal counsel, reviewed the constitutional and rule-based framework. “The house has provided for expulsion or censure procedure of its members in its rules … the process that’s laid out in the House rules start with the filing of a written statement of such complaint with the chief clerk,” Self said, summarizing the sequence that led to the committee’s appointment.

Self told members that the House rules require the speaker to appoint a six-member select committee divided equally between majority and minority party members and said the committee may dismiss a complaint after inquiry or set the matter for hearing. He also advised that matters not explicitly covered by the House rules could be handled by the chair and the committee, including the extent to which they will adopt Mason’s Manual or other precedents.

Committee members discussed practical scheduling and evidence issues. The chair asked both parties to submit lists of witnesses, copies of documents and descriptions of any tangible items they want admitted into evidence “via email by 5 p.m. tomorrow,” and said copies of the complaint would be placed on a table at the back of the hearing room after the meeting for those who wish to review them.

Several members raised concerns about the compressed time frame. Representative Carr said he had just received the complaint packet minutes before the meeting and asked for additional time to respond. “There are 46 or 48 documents that I saw … and I would need more time,” Carr said. The chair responded that the committee would adapt its procedure as needed and would not be “straight‑jacketed” by prior time limits used in earlier proceedings.

Members also asked whether Mason’s Manual would apply. Self said reliance on Mason’s Manual is discretionary: “In the past select committees some have relied heavily on Masons … and on the other hand there have been select committees that have followed their own procedures,” he said. The chair said the committee would determine how to apply parliamentary authorities and customary practices as hearings proceed.

Several speakers requested that substantive allegations not be debated at the organizational meeting. Representative Leah Howell, identified as the complainant, asked to be excused for a concurrent House vote; the chair excused her and suggested she check the meeting’s WebEx recording for any items she missed.

The meeting ended with the chair reiterating that the committee will set the date and agenda for the next meeting after receiving the requested submissions and that the next session will take up procedural specifics — including any identification of the particular rule or chapter alleged to have been violated — at which point the respondent may receive additional time to prepare a formal response.

Copies of the complaint were made available to committee members and the chair indicated the committee would exercise discretion on time allowances and procedural format for future hearings.