Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Hudson tells Ethics Committee the complaint is "frivolous," seeks dismissal
Summary
At an April 28 House Ethics Committee hearing, Representative Hudson denied allegations tied to a March 26 lunch and two beers, disputed claims about a firearm and blood-alcohol impairment, and urged the committee to find no probable cause; members pressed him on timing, evidence and due process and a probable-cause hearing was scheduled for May 1.
Representative Hudson told the Minnesota House Ethics Committee on April 28 that the complaint alleging misconduct for leaving an informational committee hearing to have lunch and two beers was "absurd" and urged the panel to dismiss it for lack of probable cause.
"The contents of the complaint filed against me are really absurd," Hudson said in opening remarks, calling the filing politically motivated and based on speculation rather than evidence. He said the complaint hinges on two implied norms — perfect attendance at every official moment and a prohibition on consuming alcohol during the legislative day — neither of which he said is consistently or uniformly enforced.
Hudson placed the March 26 facts in context, saying the Education Finance Committee held an informational hearing in which multiple bills, including House File 3930 and House File 3585, were laid over and no votes were taken. He said he stepped away between the committee and a scheduled floor session for lunch and later returned to participate in debate.
Hudson criticized a photograph taken by former House Public Information staffer Bryan Bash showing him at a bar during the day, saying the image lacked context and that the DFL caucus's rapid use of the photo suggested partisan motivation. He disputed allegations that he carried a firearm on the House floor, saying there was no indication of that in the record, and argued that a blood-alcohol chart submitted by the complainant showed he could not have been legally impaired.
"If you're going to make the case that the public trust is violated whenever a member of the Legislature isn't at the Legislature, get ready for a lot more of these," Hudson said, urging the committee to apply "common sense proportionality" as described in the nonpartisan House Research memo on ethical issues.
Committee members pressed Hudson on several points. One asked whether he acknowledged leaving committee early and having two drinks; Hudson said he did not dispute those facts but maintained they were not violations. Others asked which portions of the hearing he missed, who accompanied him that day and how he returned to the Capitol; Hudson said he did not recall exact transportation details and declined to discuss individuals outside the complaint's scope.
Hudson said he believed institutional features — preprogrammed caucus votes, a 24-hour amendment rule and negotiations that often occur off the floor — explain routine absences from formal proceedings. Several members disagreed with framing and emphasized the public's expectation that legislators attend assigned committee meetings.
A member read an email into the record indicating that the Ethics Committee planned to adopt procedures on April 28 and that a probable-cause hearing for the pending complaints would be held on May 1 at 10:00 a.m.; the message set an evidence deadline of 10:00 a.m. on April 29.
The committee recessed without making a probable-cause determination. The panel is scheduled to hear complainants and respondents at the May 1 probable-cause hearing, per the notice read into the record.
