Board hears competing legal views in ethics challenge over funding tied to Rep. Tara Simmons' employer

Judge T.J. Martin convened oral argument on May 20, 2026, in the Office of Administrative Hearings on a summary-judgment motion filed by respondent Representative Tara Simmons in a Legislative Ethics Board matter (OAH docket 401645; agency number recorded as 2025-Number5). The motion asks the board to dismiss allegations that Simmons violated provisions of the Ethics in Public Service Act concerning conflicts of interest and the securing of special privileges.

In opening argument, attorney Doug McKinley, representing Simmons, told the board the complaint lacks a required element: an allegation that Simmons personally benefited. "Where you run afoul of the legislative ethics act is when you benefit yourself," McKinley said, arguing that past board opinions and state precedent require a tangible personal benefit before a violation can be found. He said the record shows only that a proviso would fund EEC, Simmons' employer, and that there are no facts alleging the funding would produce a raise, bonus, or other tangible gain to Representative Simmons.

Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentraut, representing board staff, urged the board to deny the motion. She argued the Ethics Act allows the board to find a conflict or misuse of office based on an employee interest or conduct that uses a legislator's position to secure special privileges. "Whether the money from the proviso ultimately paid Representative Simmons is not determinative of whether it was a conflict of interest for her to be involved with it," Eisentraut said, adding that job-description language provided to staff described duties that included facilitating connections with stakeholders, including legislators.

Board staff identified three categories of alleged misconduct: sponsorship and involvement with a 2024 proviso that awarded money to EEC; a campaign-surplus donation Simmons made to AEJG that was then used to hire an individual (allegedly Jerry Stone); and Simmons' involvement in a subcontract dispute between AEJG and EEC that ultimately left EEC in a position to control data and perform work. Eisentraut also pointed to text messages in the record in which Simmons expressed frustration about AEJG complainants and said she would withhold future assistance; staff argued those messages evidence an attempt to use position-related leverage.

McKinley countered that the donation of campaign surplus and directing its use does not, by itself, create an ethics violation absent a personal benefit, and he urged that resolving disputed contract-language facts would be the purpose of an evidentiary hearing rather than summary judgment. He offered that affidavits from Simmons and Sharon Davis (executive director of EEC) demonstrate a typographical error in an email and that the contract language was consistent with Simmons not being hired to interface with legislators.

During deliberative questioning, board member Representative Hackney asked whether the allegations as pleaded are sufficient to show a special benefit; Eisentraut replied the factual allegations and evidence presented are sufficient to survive summary judgment and warrant either denial or referral to hearing if material facts remain contested.

After roughly 40 minutes of argument and questioning, Judge Martin closed oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No vote or final ruling was announced during the session.

Next steps: the board will deliberate and, depending on whether it finds disputed material facts, may schedule an evidentiary hearing or issue a decision on the motion.