Committee approves new ethics-complaint rule that defines 'legislative misconduct' and sets confidentiality, review steps

The Joint Rules Committee adopted a rewritten Joint Rule 22-1 that establishes a formal ethics-complaint procedure for the House and creates an identical rule for the Senate, which previously had no corresponding rule.

Matt Obrecht, director of the Legislative Service Office, told the committee the draft reflects work by a Management Council subcommittee and an effort to balance due process for members with public access and fairness. "The ethic complaint procedure under this rule shall be reserved for substantiated allegations of legislative misconduct," Obrecht said as he described new legislative findings and definitions drawn in part from Mason's Manual (section 797).

Key features of the adopted language include:

- A requirement that complaints be written, signed and based on unique personal knowledge. "It has to now be based on unique personal knowledge," Obrecht said, explaining that the change aims to reduce burdens on staff and leadership from complaints based solely on social-media posts or third-party accounts.

- A definition of "legislative misconduct" that includes violations of the Wyoming Constitution, the Ethics and Disclosure Act, conflict-of-interest statutes, violence or disorderly conduct during legislative meetings or duties, bribery, violations of chamber rules on ethical standards, and felonies.

- A presiding-officer screening power to summarily dismiss complaints that, on their face, are frivolous or fail to allege legislative misconduct. Notice of summary dismissal must be provided to the complainant.

- Confidentiality rules for records, findings and proceedings during review. Obrecht said, "All records, findings, and proceedings, including the filing of the initial complaint, shall be considered confidential information. But the complaint shall be available for public inspection upon the dismissal of the complaint, a referral of the complaint for formal investigation, or other final dispositive action regarding the complaint."

- A Management Council subcommittee review to determine probable cause using a standard of whether the facts would lead a reasonably prudent person informed of legislative procedure to believe misconduct occurred. If probable cause is found, the subcommittee may either refer the matter for a formal investigative committee or recommend an alternative remedial action when public investigation would not serve the interests of justice.

- An investigative committee that operates as a quasi-judicial body (the transcript notes an investigative committee composition of five senators and nine House members), with the ability to take testimony under oath, allow counsel, and make recommendations up to and including censure or, by two-thirds vote, removal.

Committee members questioned how the rule would handle complaints based on evidence discovered after an event and whether counsel could attend Management Council subcommittee review. Representative Bair asked, "Does this preclude something that's discovered later from being brought up?" Obrecht replied that it would not necessarily preclude such complaints if the person later realized they had unique personal knowledge of the event. On counsel presence, Obrecht said, "Only if that subcommittee was to invite them."

Public commenter Marguerite Herman of Lee Goldman Voters told the committee she supported the approach's balance but warned that "legislative misconduct is vague" and that the public will need guidance about what rises to the level of a formal complaint and whether out-of-session behavior is covered.

A motion to adopt the joint rule language was moved and seconded (seconded by Speaker Pro Tem Harrelson); the committee adopted Joint Rule 22-1 as amended by voice vote.

Committee leaders said they will produce talking points for whoever manages the rule on the chamber floors.