Legislative ethics board denies Tara Simmons’ motion to dismiss; hearing continues with testimony on donations, provisos and hiring

The Washington State Legislative Ethics Board on June 9 denied an oral motion by Representative Tara Simmons to dismiss two of the four matters raised by board staff and proceeded with testimony in the fact‑finding evidentiary hearing.

In oral argument, Simmons’ lawyer Douglas McKinley told the board that the state had produced no evidence that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to modify a contract in favor of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC) and urged dismissal of a second charge alleging that a legislative proviso funding AEJG, combined with Simmons’ personal donation to AEJG, created an ethics violation. McKinley said witnesses called by the state — including AOC project manager Chris Stanley — testified that Simmons did not advocate for EEC or otherwise improperly influence AOC decisions.

Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentraut urged the board to deny the motion, saying more live testimony is now part of the record and that, read together, the state’s evidence supports continuing the hearing. After a private deliberation, the panel returned and announced it had denied Simmons’ oral motion and invited the respondent to present her case.

The hearing then proceeded through testimony from two key witnesses called by the respondent. Sharone Navas, an Equity and Education Coalition executive who hired Simmons as director of strategy and later engaged her as a subcontractor, described the written employment materials, scope of work and accounting practices the organization used. Navas testified she did not pay Simmons to lobby, that she and Simmons had edited a draft contractor scope of work to remove the word “legislators” from stakeholder‑engagement language, and that EEC paid Simmons only from a general operating savings account (private funds) rather than funds tied to state contracts.

Navas recounted a meeting at the Administrative Office of the Courts to resolve a contract dispute involving AEJG and EEC. She said Chris Stanley convened the meeting, that AEJG and EEC representatives discussed deliverables and an amendment, and that she left the meeting with an agreement that the parties would amend the contract and finish the project. Navas testified she was not present for, and did not direct, the contract negotiations and that she did not bill time on the AEJG dashboard project to state funds.

Representative Simmons testified at length. She described seeking frequent ethics advice from counsel and staff (including written guidance she said she received from House counsel), and she said she took steps to separate her legislative duties from outside employment. Simmons explained she introduced AEJG’s founder Anthony Powers to EEC staff because she wanted organizations’ dashboards to complement rather than duplicate each other. She said she offered to introduce Powers to Antoine Coleman (an individual Simmons later described as a friend) and that she offered to donate campaign surplus funds to help AEJG pay payroll or taxes if the organization needed them.

Simmons testified she donated $10,000 and attempted to give an additional $40,000 (that later was returned uncashed), and said her offer was not conditioned as a demand that AEJG hire a specific person. On a phone call with AOC staffer Chris Stanley in February 2025, Simmons said she read the final budget proviso language aloud and understood the proviso to split funds between two organizations; she described that conversation as informational and said she did not lobby Stanley to favor one organization over another.

Board staff cross‑examined witnesses about emails, redlined contract drafts, invoice records, and text messages. Staff questioned whether certain texts suggested a linkage between Simmons’ donations and hiring decisions at AEJG, and asked whether Simmons had sought pre‑donation advice from House counsel specific to using campaign surplus funds for that purpose; Simmons said she did not receive pre‑donation advice to AEJG from Jennifer Struss but had discussed surplus funds with other counsel who directed her to the Public Disclosure Commission for questions about campaign fund use.

After both sides rested, the board set a schedule for closing briefs: written closing statements and any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are due by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. The judge reminded board members not to engage in outside research or ex parte discussions about the case until formal deliberations begin. The board will issue a final order after the record closes and the panel completes deliberations.

The hearing record includes multiple exhibits the board cited during procedural rulings and cross examination, including employment contracts, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning data work, and text and email exchanges among Simmons, Powers, and EEC staff. The board’s ultimate decision will turn on the record of testimony, how the panel applies the statutory ethics standards (including RCW 42.52 and related advisory guidance), and whether the panel finds that any private actions were improperly linked to Simmons’ legislative duties.

The board is expected to deliberate after the record closes on June 23; if a final order is issued, appeal rights and deadlines will be listed in that order.