Senate Conduct Committee accepts investigator's report but declines to find Rule 27 violation; recommends facilitated conversation

The Senate Committee on Conduct on Feb. 25 accepted an independent investigator's report into a complaint by Representative Shelly Bossard Davis alleging that a respondent interrupted and intimidated her during a June 20, 2025 Joint Committee on Transportation hearing.

Christela Delgado Daniel, an attorney retained by the Legislative Equity Office to investigate the complaint, told the committee she interviewed the complainant, the respondent and four witnesses, reviewed OLIS footage and documentary evidence, and concluded under a preponderance-of-evidence standard that the respondent interrupted and raised his voice toward the complainant, who she found was "reasonably shocked, embarrassed, and intimidated" and did not speak further that day. Delgado Daniel's written report concluded the respondent's conduct did not constitute discrimination under Rule 27 but did violate the legislature's respectful workplace policy.

Tracy Yee, the legislative branch's human resources director, told the committee that although typical employee-discipline tools (written warnings, personnel files, progressive discipline) do not translate directly to elected members, a facilitated, neutral conversation led by an external facilitator or trained staff would be the most appropriate remedial step to restore professional working relations if the complainant agrees to participate. "My recommendation is a facilitated conversation with the two parties," Yee said.

Representative Shelly Bossard Davis, the complainant, urged the committee to treat the investigator's factual findings as evidence of policy-violating conduct and asked the committee to reject arguments that the conduct should be excused as "passionate legislative debate." She said the investigator's report "minimized" the respondent's conduct by framing the findings around her emotional response, pointed to an alleged 2015 incident as a possible pattern, and said witnesses declined to participate earlier because of fear of retaliation.

Respondent Senator Chris Gorsek (identified in parts of the transcript with variant spellings) and his counsel, David Elkanich, asked the committee to adopt the investigator's conclusion that no discrimination occurred and argued the respectful workplace policy should not be used to police the substance or tone of legislative debate. Senator Gorsek told the committee he did not interrupt because of gender and said his remarks were aimed at defending the committee's process; he added he would participate in remediation if the committee directed it.

The committee first voted to accept receipt of the investigator's report to make the investigation and findings part of the record; the motion carried on roll call. The committee then considered three discrete issues under Rule 27 and the respectful workplace policy. On the first motion's core legal element (whether the respondent belittled, demeaned or humiliated the complainant "because of her [protected characteristic]"), the roll-call result recorded in the transcript was 1 Yes and 3 No (Senator Weber voted Yes; Senators Patterson, Anderson and Co Chair Prozanski voted No), so the motion failed and the committee did not find that harassment occurred for purposes of Rule 27.

A subsequent motion asking the committee to determine the respondent treated the complainant differently "because she was a woman" (a discrimination finding under Rule 27) similarly failed; members recorded insufficient evidence to make that determination.

On the separate respectful workplace policy question'which does not require a finding of discrimination'the committee voted to recommend that the respondent participate in a facilitated conversation with the complainant, while explicitly noting that the complainant cannot be compelled to participate. The committee directed Legislative Equity Officer Bo Yang to contact the complainant to determine whether she will take part and to report back so the committee can close the matter administratively.

Co Chair Prozanski and several members used the post-vote discussion to urge review of Rule 27 and the complaint process, citing the eight-month delay between the June incident and this hearing and noting difficulty applying employee-discipline concepts to elected officials.

The committee adjourned for the evening with instructions that staff follow up on the facilitated-conversation recommendation and consider potential reforms to make workplace-policy remedies more timely and workable for legislative settings.