Senate Business Meeting

Okay members we're gonna come back to order we should be being live streamed right now for this procedure after a Senator Stubblefield motion. So no there's another item for us is under under the procedures adopted by the Senate section six C. require the responded to be seated at the table designated for the responded rather rather than at his or her regular seat in the Senate chamber. I've talked to Senator flowers a minute ago when she indicates to me that she is not represented by outside counsel which is the reason that we have the table over there so for that reason I would request without objection that she'll be allowed to remain in her C.. Senator flowers or manor C.. Thank you all should have at your desk the binders containing the reports in the exhibit submitted by the ethics committee to the president pro tem in accordance with rule twenty four point one OO for the Senate's consideration. You should also all have a copy of the procedures for today's meeting as well as the flow chart I indicated a minute ago showing the order in which the bill the business will proceed. Okay. Neither senator had four will begin the procedures at this point neither Senator Hammer nor Senator flowers submitted a request to call witnesses or some for submitted additional documents in this matter. As such we will proceed to the presentation by the Senate ethics committee chair senator Hammer. I'll have to administer the oath Senator whenever you get down here. Senator hammer if you face me please raise your right hand. If you state your name your position as it relates to these procedures. Kim David hammer say Senator chair Senate ethics thank you for the songs were firm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god I do thank you senator thank you Hey Senator this time uh you're gonna be recognized to present the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding this Senator Stephanie flowers and you have up to one hour for that presentation will take comments by senators which will not be included in that so you do have one hour thank you Mr chairman yes Sir like to request with the chairs permission to have two members of the Senate Committee sit behind me in the and then I need to consult and asked the question I can make sure that what I status true nachricht I'd like to request senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Clarke Tucker to be allowed to sit behind me okay without objection members we will allow that that is both of those members are Senate of the are members of the Senate ethics committee. Thank you. You could proceed whenever you already thank you on August eighteenth twenty twenty two I received a petition filed by Senator Alan Clark alleging that Senator Stephanie flowers had violated the cynics code of ethics by receiving per diem and mileage reimbursement during the twenty twenty one regular session on days that she had participated in the chamber proceedings the assume under Senate rule twenty four dot zero nine address B. the Senate ethics committee is required to begin its investigation within ten business days of receiving a petition I notified the members of the ethics committee on August eighteenth that we would begin our investigation August twenty six the Committee conducted a thorough and fair investigation over the course of multiple days in which we heard from all parties involved allowed witnesses to be called an exhibit should be introduced we deliberated for hours at work to make sure that the reports accurately reflect our findings and recommendations to the full Senate the seven other committee members and I worked protect the process set forth in rule twenty four and to provide you with what we consider to be legitimate and thoughtful recommendations today I come before you to present the Senate ethics committee's findings and recommendations related to the allegations against senator flowers these are the findings of fact the Senate ethics committee found the following facts based on the exhibits and testimonies presented to us to first of all senator Senator flowers has not violated Senate rule twenty four secondly on January eleventh twenty twenty one the Senate of the ninety third General Assembly adopted temporary emergency procedures for the twenty twenty one regular session those procedures allowed for remote participation of senators in the Senate chamber proceedings under certain circumstances you can see in your binder under exhibit C. to section four paragraph to remote participation of members see also exhibit C. three recording of January eleventh. Twenty twenty one Senate chamber meeting. Third point section five little a of the temporary emergency procedures of the Senate as adopted on January eleventh twenty twenty one reads as follows a member participating remotely in a session of the Senate under these procedures shall be considered president for purposes of establishing a quorum however the member will not be counted as president for the purpose of per diem unless the member has traveled to little rock from his or her district for the purpose of participating in the sessions see in your binder jet with C. to section five paragraph to quorum. Point number four Senator Stephanie flowers participated in the Senate chamber meetings in person during week one of the twenty twenty one regular session Senator flowers participated in the Senate chamber meetings remotely in compliance with the temporary emergency procedures beginning a week to have for the remainder of the twenty twenty one regular session see exhibit C. for your binder rob Hart had field memorandum and Senator flowers state Senate chamber attendance table see also exhibit the five rob Hatfill memorandum as senator flowers zoom screenshot point five Senator flowers testified to the Senate ethics committee that she participated in the Senate chamber proceedings the is and throughout most of the twenty twenty one regular session due to our personal health concerns during the pandemic point six Senator flowers without her knowledge or consent or request was counted initially paid per diem and mileage reimbursements during weeks two and three of the twenty twenty one regular session see exhibit C. six table payments from senator from senator to senator flowers point seven Senator flowers communicate with state staff following week three of the twenty twenty one regular session upon realizing the payments had been direct deposited into your bank account that she believed had been paid in pager her in air you can see that in the state but the one Senator flowers response to comply and motion to dismiss paragraph one section three B. Senator flowers stated that she question Senate staff as to whether the payments were authorized in the temporary emergency procedures adopted by the Senate and was told that staff's reading interpretation of the rules and procedures allowed a member participate in regular session by soon to be paid per diem but not mileage see exhibit the one paragraph one section three B.. One eight missile is acknowledging her testimony that she did advise senator flowers the issue is eligible to receive per diem Senator flowers and followed up with miss corn well regarding this matter. Point nine following this conversation and adjustment was made to senator flowers payments from the Senate four by Senator flowers direct deposit during week four was reduced to allow for repayment of the mileage reimbursements paid to senator flowers during weeks two and three of the regular session see exhibit C. six paragraph two. Point ten however Senator flowers continue to be run this Lee paid per diem during weeks four through sixteen of the twenty twenty one regular session see exhibit C. six table of payments from senator to senator flowers point eleven Senate staff had acknowledged that it was their clerical air that led to the Roni's payments of per diem and mileage reimbursement to Senator flowers on days when she participated remotely in the Senate chamber proceedings during the twenty twenty one regular session and that senator flowers bore no responsibility for those Roni's payments point twelve on August eleventh twenty twenty two Senator flowers was contacted by ms Cornwell notifying her of a Roni's payments of per diem upon learning of the Roni's payments senator flowers wrote a check in the amount of two thousand seven hundred fourteen dollars reimbursing the Senate for per diem payments made for forty six days at the rate of fifty nine dollars per day C. seventy one paragraph to section four a and also see exhibit eighty three copy of the check number was eleven six forty seven. Miss Lewis testified that the amount of per diem paid to senator flowers during the twenty twenty one regular session was actually fifty five dollars per day and rather than the fifty nine dollar per day amount the Senator flowers based repayment to the Senate and that amount had been erroneously communicated to Senator flowers when she requested the amount she should repay resulting in senator flowers making over payment to the Senate. Point thirteen on August twenty second twenty twenty two Senator flowers provided additional reimbursement payment to the Senate and the amount of two hundred seventeen dollars and sixty cents after being notified by miss Lewis at four payments have been made to her on days that she had been granted leave from the Senate see exhibit the one paragraph to section four B. also see exhibit the three copy of the cashier's check two eight nine three seven five point fourteen Senate staff testified before the committee is Senator flowers have been reimbursed Senator flowers had reimburse the Senate and full for any over payments made to her during the twenty twenty one regular session related to days on which she participated in the Senate chamber proceedings the ISM or was on leave the Committee analysis is as follows Senator flowers took no affirmative action to receive this money second point Senator flowers communicate with Senate staff as soon as she became aware of the deposits into your bank account that she felt had been made in air point three in doing so she was assured by Senator staff that under current Senate procedures she was entitled to payment should receive points for today Senator flowers was made three separate reimbursements of announcmenet he wrote actually paid her during the twenty twenty one regular session as follows a deduction due week for regular session reimbursements for the amount paid to her room for mileage two thousand seven R. fourteen dollars on August eleventh to twenty twenty two as two hundred seventeen dollars and sixty cents on August twenty second twenty twenty two. Point five Senator flowers acted in a reasonable responsible insufficient manner by contacting Senate staff with questions regarding Senate policy procedures and relying on information that was given by Senate staff Senator should be able to rely on information provided by such legislative staff and Senator flowers decision to rely on the information provided her by Senator staff was reasonable and sufficient. Point six at this time based on the fiscal accounting research all of the accounting regarding this matter has been reconciled with the exception of the amount to be reimbursed to senator flowers for the amount she paid representative taxes that have been withheld and all amounts owed by Senator flowers to the Senate have been repaid and Senate staff are working with the FAA to reconcile the amounts. The fact scenario presented by Senator Clark allegation is not unprecedented testimony was given by Senate staff that one similar over payments to senators have occurred over past years the senator was notified of the air and allowed to repay the erroneous payments to the Senate. The senators and staff were working an unprecedented surge circumstances of conducting a legislative session during a pandemic which included wholly new procedures and scenarios including remote participation by members clerical airs regrettably but understandably occurred finally none of the actions alleged or facts presented to the committee amount to an ethical violation of Senate rule twenty four by Senator flowers in addition all staff acted with high integrity and within the scope of their positions with the Senate in handling of these matters including the Senate investigations. Committee conclusions and recommendations recommendations the Senate ethics committee was presented with allegations of two violations of Senate ethics rule twenty four dot oh three and rule twenty four dot oh six C. one after many hours of deliberation review of all testimony exhibits presented to it the Committee have following conclusions Senate rule twenty four point oh three regent park the park as follows senator shall comply with all constitutional statutory provisions related to elected office violations of any constitutional statutory provisions shall be grounds for administering penalties as provided in code of ethics secondly the committee determined that no provision of constitutional or statutory law was violated by the actions alleged by Senator flowers in fact Senator flowers actions and conferring with Senate staff upon noticed noticing the direct deposit sure counts as with prepayment of the Roni's amounts paid to her during the twenty twenty one regular session once those errors were brought to our attention this demonstrated a desire by Senator flowers to remain in compliance with the law as well as the Senate procedures and policies next Senate rule twenty four dot O. six one C. reach a senator shall not knowingly seek except use allocate grant or award public funds for purposes other than that approved by law or make a false statement in connection with the claim request or application for compensation reimbursement or travel allowances from public funds Senator flowers did not knowingly seek accept or use any compensation or reimbursement to which she was not entitled and she justifiably sought the input and guidance to Senate staff as to whether the reimbursements made by her were permitted under Senate procedures next she was assured by staff that she was entitled to the per diem reimbursement she was receiving and work with staff to remember. The Senate for the erroneously paid mileage reimbursements next in addition when it was brought to Senator flowers attention that she had been paid per diem and air during the twenty twenty one regular session for the days that you participate remotely I was on leave she immediately reimburse the Senate for those amounts and then finally Senator flowers actions related to these payments including your reliance on the information provided to her by Senate fiscal officer in tech director Secretary of the Senate was reasonable justified justifiable at sufficient and do not amount to the violation of sentence code of ethics Mister chair I yield to questions from the senators and will to have to motions following my closing statement okay and just just for the record if you to knowledge you do not have any witnesses. I did not present any witnesses I would like to ask the right that if witnesses are provided that I would have the opportunity to respond with questions but I did not submit a list of witnesses okay at this time uh members you can ask questions of senator Hammer if you have any. There any questions of senator Hammer. I see no. Of center back. I understand the the presentation that you made with. Right there on the. After the investigation after digging through emails being presented to you that there was no. Ellen by Senator flowers should know it takes violation from the standpoint that this committee. What would be an appropriate Way of reporting resolving that issue what a number five something like that are hello. Is given that. What would be the appropriate way for them to resolve. Senator. But maybe I'm going to be real specific all of our questions need to be on the. On the findings of that because we we have to stay germane to all of these so. Per share your question but we need we need to stay just just on what he what he discussed US. Anyone else and again at the St Germain. To those findings and those recommendations that he presented. I see no other father quit any further questions so. Okay. At this time uh will recognize Senator Senator flowers present a response to the fighting findings if she so chooses so you don't you you're not gonna have a response okay so Senator flowers says indicated to me that she's not going to have a response. Give me just a moment. Which means you will not have any witnesses will have to. For that. Okay. Senator flowers I would have to ask you to are you going to are you going to take any questions. From any of the other senators. Okay you're you're indicating no. Okay. Okay. And one final thing then Senator flowers. Do you wish to present. I will say a closing statement I don't know how you would do a closing statements that you haven't presented but do you wish to make a statement at all. Okay us let the record show that senator flowers is indicated that the she does not or not want to. be recognized for response she's not going to provide any witnesses. And that she's also not going to have any questions from other senators and that she will not have a closing statement. Senator Hammer. How may I recognize you for your closing statement if you so wish thank you Mr chairman. Senator Clark alleged in this petition the Senator flowers had violated provision twenty four point oh three of the Senate code of ethics but fail to provide the committee with any evidence that senator flowers had violated any provision of constitutional or statutory law in addition Senator Clark alleges Senator flowers had violated section twenty four point oh six one C. of the Senate code of ethics but the committee found that the evidence clearly show the Senator flowers did not knowingly seek accept or use public funds for purposes other than that a provided allowed by law in fact one Senator flowers became aware of the Roni's depository account she communicate with Senate staff to determine whether she had been paid per diem in compliance with Senate policies Senator flowers acted in a reasonable manner when she relied on information she was given by the Senate staff then at each instance where she was notified by Senate staff the clerical errors had occurred three separate instances she worked with staff to immediately make reimbursements to the state testimony and evidence presented to the committee showed that this unfortunate incident was the result of clerical heirs not ethical violations and Senator flowers had acted in a reasonable suspicion and ethical manner with regards to this matter as such I would ask the Senate adopt the recommendation of the committee regarding Senator Stephanie flowers Mr chairman at this time I have to motions. Okay at this time your record recognized for your first motion thank you Mr chairman I move that the Senate find the Senator Stephanie flowers has not violated Senate rule twenty four point oh three. Okay do we have a second. Okay we have a second to that motion. Is there any to any of the senators have any questions of Senator Hammer in regards to that motion. Okay I'm not seeing any questions for you on that senator Hammer is there any center here that wishes to speak for the motion. Is there any Senator here that wishes to speak to speak against that motion. Okay I'm not not seeing any. Okay madam director the role now be called Mr to take my seat and I remain here yes Sir I'm sorry you you're. I tell you what if you don't mind why don't you take your seat for this and then you'll have to come back. My record if you would wasted call the roll in just a second members if you would all want to I want to read this and So I'm asking everyone of you to take your seats sent twice and Hammer doing that the pairing a vote should not be recognized each senator present shall verbally respond we and. His or her name is called by voting with one of the following responses yea. May. President or AFP stain. This is very important if you do not respond when your name is called you will be recorded is obtaining. So at this time. Misheard to you if you would please call the roll. Ballinger. Ballinger voce Beckham. That convo TA Bledsoe. Let's have a TA Caldwell. Culpability eight Chesterfield. Chesterfield L. T. A. Clark. Clark both GA Davis. Davisville TA dismaying. DISMANG L. TA Elliott. Eligibility age inclusive. English Flippo T. A. Flippo. Livable TA flowers. Flowers about yes full for is on leave Garner. Garner abstains Gilmore. No more votes yea Hammer. Hammer. Hammer J. Hendren. Hendren voce Hester. The service yeah Hickey yes thank you voce Health hill. Hello thirty eight Ingram is on leave Irvin is on leave Blake Johnson. Blake Johnson voce mark Johnson. Mark Johnson the TA Leding. Leding voce pitch. Pitsch voce Rapert is Ali rice. Riceville TA. Sample. Sample TA Stubblefield. Stubblefield BelTA Sturch. Sturch voce Sullivan. Sullivan voce Teague is on leave Tucker. Tucker road J. Wallace. Wallace is a gay. Hold on just member minute members I want to get the exact tally. Okay members by a vote of twenty nine days one of stain that motion does Kerry for the past and Senator Hammer you're now recognized for your next motion. Thank you Mr chairman I move that the Senate find the Senator Stephanie flowers had not violated Senate rule twenty four dot O. six one C.. Is there a second. Is there any questions of of of Senator Hammer in just on this motion. Okay any center will speak for. Any center one speak against. Senator you can take your C.. Same thing again but I'm over it read it again per Senate rule twenty four point one with. The roll roll will be called I ask that all members take their seats the pairing of votes will not be recognized you senator president of our ability to respond when his or her name is Caldwell voting with one of the following responses yea nay president or staying. Madam director if you would please call the roll. Ballinger. Ballinger Baltz yea Beckham. The convo TA Bledsoe. Bledsoe TA Caldwell. Call the TA Chesterfield. Chesterfield votes yet A. Clark. Carpentier dismaying. Davis I'm sorry Davis. Davis was a J. DISMANG was a yeah Elliott. Eligibility a English yeah. This is a gay Flippo. Flippo voce flowers. Flowers about J. full for is on leave Garner. Garner abstains Gilmore. Gilmore. Go Marvell TA Hammer. Hammer. Hendren hundred voce Hester. Mister BelTA Hickey yes thank you voce hill. Still the T. eight Ingram is on leave Irvin is on leave Blake Johnson. Blake Johnson voce mark Johnson Mark Johnson voce Leding. Leding voce pitch. Pitsch voce report is on leave rice. Riceville TA sample. Sample Stubblefield. Stubblefield the TA Sturch. Sturch Sullivan. Sullivan voce Teague is on leave Tucker. Tucker voce Wallace. Well associate. Okay members by a vote of twenty ninety days one of staying that motion also carries so at this time members I will ask that we just take a ten ten minute recess. And we will be back in here. At the. Every time it will be to thirty two. Okay members have come back to order. We said we were in a of a short break I said we will come back by two thirty two is now two thirty three so that time is expired. So everyone please take your seats and the we will begin at this site. All right okay having a resolve soon Senator Stephanie fires of the ethics allegations brought up against her in accordance with rules Senate rule twenty four thirteen we will now take up the findings and recommendations of the Senate ethics committee related to Senator Alan Clark we will continue to follow the same procedure for this portion of our business meeting as were filed for allowed for responded to an ethics petition during the earlier part of our meeting today. Senator Clark. Where is the core sell some sort Senator Clark Is Senator Clark is my understanding that you have outside legal counsel and so that you will be sitting in there would would you like to Introduce them. It's just up to you Sir. We can I guess you allow you to come to the will if you want to just for that specific purpose are you can do that from your chair center. Yes my counsel is of. Turning point however. And Clint Lancaster. Thank you senator and I'm All I Want to read a statement as our president on our procedures is how it relates to outside legal counsel whenever you come into the Senate so under the procedures adopted by the Senate I responded may bring legal counsel into the chamber however the legal counsel will have to abide by these three bullet port points already they may only be in the Senate chamber while the findings and recommendations regarding the senator. That he and she is advising or being considered. It is all there you are only allowed in the chamber in advisory capacity capacity and shall not address the Senate question witnesses make objections to the presiding officer. And as you are right now should be seated next to the responded at the table designated for the responded only. So with that Senator Clark if you don't mind going back to the responded to. Okay at this point members I will know I will note at this point the Senator Clark Is included Steve cook as a potential witness. I feel that due to city's role as the Senate legal counsel it is vital to our parliamentary procedure that he remained in the chamber during this process proceeding as such without objection stable remain here and as usual advisory capacity. Seeing no objections and Steve will remain in the chamber with us in his capacity. The first matter businesses consider motions by Senator Clark to bring witnesses and additional exhibits that remark not brought before the ethics committee under our procedures in order to allow calling of a witness or introduction of exhibits that were not brought before the committee. The Senator requesting the call the witnesses shall provide the Senate with information how to witnesses will will witnesses testimony will further its case and why the witness was not called before the committee. Senator Clark a submitted request a call the following witnesses that were not witnesses before the Senate ethics committee as stated before that is Mr Steve cook Senator hammer and also senator flowers. In addition Senator Clark has three additional exhibits that he would like to present that were not evidence before the committee. we will take over each of these items of in separate motions. One other thing to one other thing for me to say he is a Senator Clark was asked if he was going to do that to do that by Wednesday of this week I believe at the start of this meeting he has told me that he has. If I remember correctly you have one additional witness and one additional exhibit is that correct. Okay. Okay Senator Clark on now of recognize you to present your motions as it relates to those items that I just discussed. You will have to take the oath whenever you you get down here first and then you can proceed. Senate displaying your question question just to make sure I understand so we're going to be voting on each proposed new witness separately is that correct and then each proposed new piece of information separately that is correct okay thank you. Okay Senator Clark you would please the face me and raise your right hand. If you would please state your name in your position ever look as it relates to these proceedings Alan Clark state Senate okay do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony about it will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god do. Okay Senator Clark you may see with your motions. And the first one that I had is that. If you're if you're gonna make still make what what you've told us is that that will be a motion on Mr cook. You want him to be a witness to the. Of so when you when you have listed first yes Sir and I don't care how you do it if you rather do something different than the way we know and I don't know. You have a so I noted no was gonna be done one at a time okay so are you just have to. Is your first one going to be in regards to Mr cook they'll be fine okay so you can proceed with Mr okay the first of a if I may say so Mister chair and colleagues. The. These. The ethics charges go through the committee. Of these are new charges. Of and so witnesses that I introduced and evidence that I introduced for the ethics charges of are not the same witnesses and evidence that's needed to defend myself against the charges that have been made against me of so. The that's something we may want to change in the rules in the future but of. For now I will try to present each one of the state court of. Has it has been standard card so just just to kind of law I think you know that you would probably just say that the good good make a motion to allow the cook I make a motion to allow Steve cook of. And what information do I need to provide. Okay what you according to our procedures. What you need to do is you'll you'll need to provide the Senate with information regarding how the witness testimony will further further your case. And why the witness was not called before the committee so you have two things out of how how that would further your case and why the witness was not called before the committee. I had absolutely no reason to call Steve before the committee but it in the report of its. States the there's testimony that I. had. Thirty thirty two ethics charges ready to fall Steve was the one who filed the ethics charge he has information regarding that he also has information regarding the timeline because it's been. I don't remember the words it reviews but basically said that I was reckless and and he has information in regards to the timeline. Or just please be safe so are you finished with that motion. I believe so okay so we heard a motion Is there a second. We have a second on that now if there would is there questions just in regards to the motion to allow Mr cook. Amanda Senators I thank god I think I recognize Senator Ballinger first. Thank thank you Mister chair but just clarification of a question for Senator Clark is. In the end I think you stated this but but one thing is you know we're your your committee clearly to my phone to have a hard time hearing you but you never had an opportunity before the committee to present any type of defense to to the charges that they are going to be bringing against your right so so any evidence that would help your case used for testimony you never had a chance present that before the committee because at this point the Committee never even heard your defense for on the charges but B. and retaliatory or for the for less or whatever correct that would be correct okay thank you. Senator Solomon you're recognized Sir. Mr president this is more to use so if the witness is called are they compelled to testify. I would think I would think not that I need to get with our legal counsel on that so give me a. Okay if I understand this correctly members and this is just as it relates to the motion at hand it may be different. If there's a senator involved which we know we will be so first of all as far as it relates to this the the then yes he'll testify the only thing is is that he cannot use the border confidential information as you all know the way that he talks talks and does his job down here so with that stipulation I hope that answers that question Senator Solomon. I don't know if that will so are other senators will be called when they're compelled to testify we'll get to them in a minute. Right right now we are just on the motion okay if this body wants to allow Mr cook to be called as a witness Senator Dismang. Hendren understand we're kind of in uncharted territory here because it's not just a staff attorney for us also said you can raise the issue of confidential information between or attorney client privilege whatever may be. I guess because I'm not enter an understand how this plays out I would assume that that is waived if he becomes a witness and the reason being. Is the only one that can ask them then at that point any questions is the respondent. Because he's the only one allowing additional information that may be privileged to be released if any of us ask information of their conversations or whatever it may be we would not be allowed to to gather that information I don't know how that works because again I'm not an attorney but I think it puts them in a very strange position. for us in the membership or not saying any of this will happen but we are creating President. The end so just kinda restate my question. And he can ask me anything to be doubled as a witness because at that point he's allowing him to say things none of the rest of us are allowed to ask any questions that would be even similar to that I would assume that the turnout of members this keyboard or we're not gonna have a lot of talking to you all know this thing we got to keep it we got to keep it on the tracks so let's just hit that all prior to beginning so. I believe in I will ask Mr gear the if I say something wrong or she thinks is not correct to correct me but I believe it Senator Clark calls Mr cook. Then if you senator Clark ask him about their conversation then that's okay to the board but if senator Clark court ask Senate vote Mr cook about any other members conversations. I don't believe that would would be understood okay what about other members asking questions of some of Mr cook. I think if it relates to to Senator Clark. If it relates to Senator Clark what I'm what I think and again if you all want to correct me here as it relates to Senator Clark that He could answer those questions but he couldn't ask answer any other questions if it relates to the other members that's what I want to make sure I understood thank you. Yes Sir. Senator Garner yes yes are awfully this is a legal proceeding but I think in general if an attorney and the client waive the privilege attorney client privilege in any subject of the discussion should be open to any kind of interpretation generally House handled so there should be no question is off limits excellent except another attorney client privilege is now the center. Thanks for the clarification center. Is there any other is there any questions any other questions of a Senator Clark on his motion for Mister cook. Senator Chesterfield yes ma'am thank you so much Mister chair of the senator was standing away from the my I still not clear as to what the purpose of Mr cook being called he is as he was not call prior so would you state that again for me so that I'm clear. Yes senator Chesterfield the. One. Of I'll take the second one I mentioned first. The to establish a timeline the the that this committee has. The auto ward the use of like but basis that I acted recklessly and I need to establish a timeline of and to. The it was put out of the charges in the report that there was testimony that I had said that I had thirty to thirty two at six charges written and ready to fall of and. The of. Steve can of. The. Would be helpful and then ensuring that. During member the which is a Speaker for this motion. Remember that which it wishes to speak against this motion. Okay I will do this by a voice vote and of course the motion before is is that brought about Senator Clark is that we will allows the food to be brought as as a witness so all in favor say aye. Any oppose. Okay that motion does pass Senator Clark. Do you have a I have the next one the next will be senator Hammer. As as a witness but that's up to you who's next after that Senator flowers the stakes are to the. That would be the one that you have not indicated to me yet. You indicated to me what. He indicated to me of course you indicated to me. Before the okay for today right whenever we came in here that you have with another witness. Okay but that's not all our turn them. It should read me the thing is is this this isn't relates to witnesses that were not that that were not okay what a question Committee thank you for clearing that up because I didn't call. The other two as witnesses even though there were witnesses I didn't call them so that's what I thought and necessary yes this is just a as it relates to the so that we're following our procedures that these witnesses that did not present in the committee. The. A there are. I hope. to be able to clear up any of. Questions with senator Hammer of. At the time that he presents the. Senate senator are you making a motion making a I'm sorry under Hammer I'm sorry so that it will just start that way that be good did you move thank you thank you Mr I make a motion that we that you allow me to call center Kim Hammer as a witness the reason being that I hope not to have to call him up but because I hope that in question and when he presents that we can cover everything of that in the to cover but there are questions about the procedure specifically of. The This procedure that up I think it's important okay so if I understand right of course you've got. Got how the witnesses testimony will further your case and why the witness was not called before the committee so you're Y. force would be because you believe that he's testify in regards to procedures if so that would be or why. Okay can you restate how the witnesses testimony will further your case. The. Two. Demonstrate that. The. Committees of. Findings of. May not be accurate. And if the committee's findings are not accurate that certainly affects my case. K.. All right you've you've are you part of the motion by Senator Clark he's asking to allow Senator Hammer to be called to be called as a witness do we have a second. I need to set. Okay we have we have a second. As Senator Hendren your education indicate you have a question of the Senator Clark yeah I don't know but Senator Clarke Tucker the legal counsel but this is similar Senator Solomon questions you know I know that. Early a member does not have to go to the well anytime they want with regard to how we conduct business in the Senate my question is if senator Hammer or senator flowers or any other senator is called do they have the discretion to say I don't want to testify. Okay I'm on I'm gonna S. since we're not addresses Senator senator Mr cruise Mister cook would you like to come down and talk to that because we have already address the that you are we are parliamentarian so I couldn't do that on the last one because you're the one addition. Senator Clark do you mind allowing him to do that thank you Sir. Ultimately eighteen members decide what the rules are here if the if if the member has been called to testify in that member just let just say aye I'm not going to do that. somebody can make a motion hearing contempt of the Senate. Under our under our constitutional powers. Ultimately it but a member has rocketed to say I'm not going to testify is not the the. My position to testify not by rolling Reserve Bank not to. But if a body makes a motion at this members been asked it's been compelled instance Senate proceeding to. To testify. the only thing that can make him testify or her just by is is a motion from this body that you you senator such as such shall testify or that Senator is contempt of the Senate under our article five section twelve thank my but it but unless a team members compel that. That's that's going to be a second choice March I guess that's my question maybe it Senator Clark of the motion is that what the motion is the motion to compel by mandatory at the at the risk of being in contempt of the Senate or is it to request the member I think it's more of a request I don't think any any senator can compel another senator to do anything that does or doesn't want to do unless eighteen members compel that Senator speak okay thank you. In order right now I've only got three in my head. Senator Clark if you don't mind coming back I have other questions is is is your questions Senator Pitsch Mr cook or will process it may go to senator Mr commitment to you I think for now okay. Okay ground. But I would like some clarification on that Senator hammer in this instance it's going to be available for cross examination and I would like the definition of what he needs to be a witness. Or cross examination will get the answers. The respondent the shooting for because I to me I think we're double. Hammering one person because he'll be up there making the case can be available for cross examination and I think if the case needs to be made to prove that him being a witness for the respondent is important to his case. And I don't know how how we do that I mean that that that if you don't think he's established that as well. I think I think that's up to center court to prove to you. Of why he thinks that's different because that is going to be his witness so if he thinks that there's some different Cheney fact between that that's that's a question that you need to be asked him. So do you want to do that well I guess I would give that to Senator Clark I need more clarification of how him being cross examined on what the procedure was at cetera which is where that normally would take place as opposed to being a witness called by you to answer the same question. Your. The. I believe that. A. Testimony of other witnesses may raise questions. After he has made his presentation. K.. I will take the order us saying on. Of. Senator Elliot you you raise your hand you still wish question yes Garner we net okay. hi I guess this is maybe to see perhaps and Senate Clark I would mind if the maybe answers well but Steve initially I know that we make some likenesses to a real court setting I know that we make some likenesses to record setting but we're also. The Senate without question. And on any given day in the Senate I can not require somebody to go to the well and answer my question if I want them to. So I guess I would like to know what seems to be the overriding atmosphere here do we need to treat this like it's some kind of court session and therefore you may be in contempt or are we having a session here in Senate one of the rules of whether or not somebody can compel me to come to to come answer questions what applies I'd like to know you're thinking about that maybe thanks court's ruling questions due process issues the you know I was notified at five fifty two Monday. that I needed to get Evidence any additional evidence which that's what there would be it wouldn't be additional of these are the charges evidence and witnesses of and I have been working around the clock to try to make that happen. But. The I'm not trying to compel anything I would hope. With the seriousness of the charges against one of our own and with the of. The seriousness of the punishments that have been suggested. that I'd be given a letter to. because basically gotta prove myself innocent not be proven guilty. Of. The. Given latitude to. Of. To prove that and though I did not I wasn't trying to compel anyone up I would hope that they would voluntarily. test of a and I and I think I understand what you're saying and I just wanna be really clear that I am Senator I got some strictly on. What the reaction will be. Do you respect the fact that if somebody decides he or she does not want to be compelled so to speak. To be a witness that he would be understanding of that either way because they have that all of us are people in here and they have that prerogative. Okay this again I was given till noon when state to get a witness list in. And the. There is there is no subpoena process that I know of and so so. And in the interest of time I'm not I'm not I agree with your bill I'm just in the interest of time wanted to know if the person said yea or nay to be a with you all soon witnesses will. I soon witnesses were voluntary and and I hope that that my colleagues would not have a problem with with being asked questions. So that person's choice to either testify or not testify without rancor or anything else sent me yes okay thank you I appreciate. Senator Garner you still have questions Sir yes Mister chairman there's nothing in the Senate ethics rules like a fine but the Senate business meeting called under Senate rule twenty four point ten there's a section that dealing with this is if you look at number seven on page two on the third item is basically I think this is the line that we need to pay attention to if eighteen or more senators vote to allow the testimony of the witness the witness shall be call and placed under oath. I don't know if that changes your committee number not by fermentation Beaver we both to allow to happen a center would have to be placed up there Semporna over now what they be compelled to testify or would they would not but they under cross of eighteen both you have to do that hello Lowery. User were denied questions or answers. Senator Dismang do you have a question. I guess my question is that we know. Are we just in the question portion we the forwarding it to the witness because I I mean we're still. I still have a group of senators are going to ask questions of Senator Clark so that's if if you want to wait till that and that's fine but will my my question though is what to do senator Elliots point man with this is somewhat we're trying to structure it we need to have structure and and two in its capacity Senator Hammer is the prosecutor in some ways and typically I don't thank you so the prosecutor down. And hold them as a witness and I may be wrong and again I'm not an attorney in this way out of my. You know rent but it may I think of all people in the chambers you may be in a bit of a different position than anyone else. But I I deferred to an attorney in the room on average or or or whatever I just. It It ways yeah I think I and I think that's been addressed I mean although although in the end it's just is this body this body sets its own rules by the constitution I mean so it's if eighteen of you all eighteen of us. Make that make that decision which is what we're about to do right with this particular one if eighteen if you say that a senator Senator Hammer. You know is to be called as a witness then I believe it says senator garner said in here we called as a witness are we giving those and then from that point we'll just have to proceed further. If that happens so. Senator Chesterfield did you have a question because I had you next. Think I do Mr. How much time was spent is this the center how much time was how much time are you allowed to present your case. To the Committee. One. That the difficult question of give me a ballpark. I would have I mean that I was given as much time as. I want as long as I was on subject but I don't think I took that long but again I could be wrong sometimes you're but you were given up to an hour and a half to present your case to prove the case on the other charge is not a case against the approvals. Thank you thank you Mr I wanna make sure I understood that or we talk about the procedure whenever you get there and presenting your case you have one hour. You know what I was. During the initial hearing thank you ma'am I want to make how much time was given. For both sides to present their case and in looking at the record it was a substantial time that's what I'm just trying to find a thank you so much thank you ma'am. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chairman. The Senator Clark you have rights in this proceeding here today which I absolutely respect and firmly believe this proceeding should be totally fair to you and I I support that. Senator Hammer also has rates as well and with this motion more so than the first one my thought process is is trying to balance that. And you know Senator Hammer is in a particular position as the chair of the ethics committee. And. Part of me wonders whether he needs his own counsel as to the questions that you may be asking of him. So. I have just way that in my own mind before I prepared to vote on your motion and from my standpoint I know you said a little bit about what you expect Senator hammers. testimony to be but just for me I I need more detail it's been over a little vague to me about why you may need to call Senator Hammer but before I'm comfortable voting on this motion and back trying to balance the rights between you know yours and Senator Hammer is I just need a little more detail. It could you repeat this the question. Yes yes I'm trying to trying to balance I want to support your rights to a fair proceeding here today I'm I'm totally supportive of that Senator hammer also has rights as a witness and I think he needs to be on notice of whether he should get his own counsel as a witness in this proceeding and he can't do that without knowing be having some notice about what he may be called to testify about he also has obligations as the chair of the ethics committee. you know there's competency confidentiality with regard to their proceedings that took place over there so for me I'm trying to balance your rights with Senator hammers rise as to the proceeding here today and in order to resolve that in my mind I need more detail about what you're expecting out of senator Hammer as a witness and it's been you've you've made a little bit of a comment about what you expect out of Senator Hammer to me that comment is fairly vague and I I just need more in order to be able to resolve how I'm going to vote on the motion. Thank you senator Tucker first of all. I would in a a less I think it's because I understand your concern to understand others concerns looked at it long and hard of and I wouldn't call Senator Hammer unless I thought it was completely necessary. And. A. Don't know of anything that I would ask that would be of. The incriminating or For. Secretary but actually take him outside this is one of those proceedings why don't want there to be any outside interference thank you for proposing a lot like I said this is very serious and there are issues of that Senator Hammer may be able to answer of. After other testimony has come forward. Okay as any other that could serve and if not for that purpose the charter of. of a wooden I will call in and you can you can raise it if you see me if I called in which is doubtful and I do that then please raise that. Concern because it is not I don't have any evil intent. Any other questions. Senator hammer then Senator Sturch. Senator Hammer you're recognized. I'd like to direct this to the chair with the opportunity to ask are Senate legal counsel can I directed to the chairperson. I guess so Sir. So. As someone who may be put under. to you know be called as a witness that also Senate chair at age. Would I have the opportunity because that have advanced what did. In order for evidence no Sullivan call which I can't member to know to bring legal counsel to represent me in this can I could I request today to have somebody represent me to ask me questions back. In the event I'm asked the question by Senator Clark I would like the opportunity to be able to respond but I don't know who that person would be to give me an opportunity to respond. Sure that would I would assume no. Because I don't know how that would work we don't have it in our proceedings we scheduled this meeting and you're here today if you have we don't have we have knows nothing in our in our procedures that states that you know if a witness or whatever I guess has a. outside legal counsel with them. Whether they're going to be allowed to speak they're gonna have to be beside you. That nature so the way that we're currently set of eighteen members of this body can feel differently but I would have to have to say we'll know. Could follow question yes Sir could I make a motion and a little bit. To ask for your legal counsel would I be allowed to make a motion and a little bit. If needed I will again Senator up and I hope all the centers understand this you know having to make these decisions on the fly as we go yes Sir this is not something we normally do I would think that that would be appropriate that what I think that would be appropriate after the motion okay that would would either allow or not allow you thank you. Well as it Senator Sturch and then Senator Beckham. Thank Mister this is a question to you as well It and probably our staff but I wanted to know is there anything that in our rules assess the respondent cannot ask the Senate at the extra questions after his presentation I am looking through it but I'm trying to figure out then why would that not be the opportunity for the responded to has to Senate ethics your questions. I would be able to I think that was kind of brought up a minute ago and somebody kind of asking a Senator Clark you know hi if you were to differentiate between those so yes Sir I think that's very good point thank. Who is next Senate back. To clarify a center hammers request. If he's called as a witness. He can't question. self correct. He can't cross examine. To make sense I'd like a better lawyer. Thank you senator Beckham. Members can we move on all right Senator Mark Johnson a senior Nixon and Senator Hendren. Mr chairman and in. To make this more efficient. Hi and this might be a question for Mr cook but I presume I hope that Senator Hammer would have all of his Fifth Amendment rights in this proceeding including simply to decline to take or answer certain questions from senator Clark if he thought it would not be in his personal best interest therefore I would hope that we could allow this to move forward with the understanding that not because he's Senator and he's been asked to testify but because as a citizen and he just declines to answer that would not preclude him from answering the other questions is that correct Mr cook more less Mr Cruz indicated yes on that thank you Mr chairman. Thanks. So excited that Mike please this is this is not a cent this is we're not in session this is a business that is yes. Or anything that Senator Hammer things is privileged. That's going to be his call he. He's compelled but not compelled to testify because but isn't that testified he will testify. It is comfort level but is comfort level is such that he actually has a right to decline on what you just said anything he thinks is privileged. The body of Senator Hendren your next or I think I think that addresses the concern of most of his hand that was brought up by the point in the rules to say and by Senate by Steve's comments that eighteen of this can compel somebody to testify or they're in contempt of the Senate I think so long as we all understand that is Senator hammer or Senator flowers or any other senator has called chooses that they either one exercise our Fifth Amendment or they want to leave the well just like we do every time we start getting asked questions we don't mess with they have the right to do that I think everyone is clear that that is the the rules were playing under. We're fine and I guess. Mr cook is that what I'm hearing is the case. Okay One clarification those witnesses will be sitting at the table not on the way over to us so that we got it perfect if we keep it that way. Anyone else. All right you want to speak for against it. The senator Hammer you want to speak for it. Senator Hammer is being recognized to speak for the motion. I think your statement one time the Dan Sullivan made to me to remind me about the constitution and the framers of the constitution that the intent is that we would always be moving toward a more perfect union we are in unfamiliar territory and quite honestly I'm glad it is unfamiliar because it means it doesn't happen on a regular occurrence but I think the one overall arching goal that we should have regardless of whether it's in the rules currently or whether it's going to be in the rules after we experience what we're going through right now is that we would make sure that due process and no doubt is left in anybody's mind or anything would be able to be pointed to that would say well because of that we don't really know. I personally want to get up here and just say that I do not object to being. Sworn in as a witness I understand we are setting precedence and so also understand I'm speaking for myself personally but I just wanted to make sure in the clear to the body that I do not have any objection but with all clarification and moment allowed I'll make a motion because I would like representation all for the committee and will learn from this and go on thank you. Senate is mine you're recognized recognized to speak against the motion. And I'm in my reason is this I mean a. Senator Hammer is charged with the task today that he's going to have performed for this entire chamber as head of the ethics committee there's a time and place that he's going to be able to be asked questions by Senator Clark. I do not see the point in setting aside as a separate witness and also think it's going to very much cloudy we put a cloud over this process and what his role is forevermore the chairman of the ethics committee is then also able to be called down as a separate independent went this again I I don't know because I'm not an attorney but I don't think that the in a defendant's typically call the prosecutors to the table and then start asking them questions I don't think that that's how that works. but again for that reason and really for the president that I think it would create that would be a bad idea for us to start calling the person that is about to lead this session in some ways. Also as a witness for the defendant I I just I don't think that that's the a proper thing for us. Okay Senator Dismang spoken against Senator Ballinger you wanna speak for you're recognized these are. Thank you Mr just for I'll let me share something with you that feels like instrument compelling to me is the process is set up when somebody files a claim for ethics violation that that they'll have the option to have due process so what will happen is under fire filed an answer all of the evidence everybody can bring evidence to go before the the ethics committee and then you can provide testimony to bring people down to testify. What what's happening here is none of that happened like none of that happened if if you're in a situation where there was a the board whether the prosecutor The had evidence and he was a necessary witness that prosecutor would recuse himself and we kind of saw a little bit the last time Senator Hickey brought the claim so he didn't preside over you pass it over to you because he didn't want to see it have the appearance of a of impropriety will. If this if we have the extended process like we normally would wear Senator Clark could say you know Senator Hammer is necessary witness maybe he wouldn't be the one who would be be designated as the person's care and that's what we're struggling through this because frankly we don't have a set of rules for this situation that is that he never had the opportunity go before that thanks committee and present his case he may have filed the charge right for the prosecution but never had a chance to explain you know put on the evidence as to the reasons why he did it before there was ever ever findings of the issue so to me it seems extremely compelling that we should even I was muddy the the mass that we should give the opportunity to do that now I know that probably Senator Hammer is probably not going to get called because he'll make himself available be willing to answer all the questions when he's presenting but if he doesn't or somebody makes a motion or X. cut off or whatever it is that I think the person who is ready to face some real hard penalties ought to be able to put put on his full case as much as he possibly can in this abbreviated situation. Thank you. Hey Senator Ballinger is vote for the motion is anybody will speak against the motion. Anybody else for the motion Senator Clarke Tucker you are which way. On the motion yes Sir. I really just want to one respond to a point that Senator Ballinger made at everything to Senator rounder says about due process for Senator Clark I'm one hundred percent on board with totally agree but Senator Ballinger made some comments about the fact that Senator Clark never had an opportunity to discuss any of this and from the ethics committee and that's and that's not exactly what took place and I just want to and it was a full proceeding no was it was not a full proceeding in that and there's merit and Senator Ballinger is point but to say that Senator Clark never had an opportunity to address any of this with the ethics committee is is not accurate. Okay hold on do you want to take a question Senator Ballinger you won't be recognized for that yes okay thank you. Senator but the one thing I guess my point is is he was not aware that he was having charges brought against him so he was able to speak only because as to why he brought the product made by the twenty but what he didn't have the opportunity to is to demonstrate that the that his claim was in. Wasn't frivolous that his claim was a motivated out of out of an animus or were motivated out over to the retail to thank you have a chance to put on any evidence to demonstrate that any of these facts that has been presented against of the claim against him are not true correct. There was no formal allegation pending against him at the time the Senate ethics committee proceeding to place there's and the evidence does not if your event diagram it would not be a one hundred percent overlap in which is why I think we need to be deferential to senator Clark an alarm to call I voted in favor of allowing him to call Mr cook but the vendor I Graham there's a there's about and I don't know ninety percent overlap maybe and so everything we're about to discuss was discussed not maybe not not everything but a huge portion of what we're about to discuss was thoroughly investigated and carefully considered and the ethics committee proceeding and Senator Clark not in the Senate committee deliberations for the actual proceeding was present for all of it and able to address any questions at the Senate ethics committee members raised and a bunch of questions related to this specifically were raised to Senator Clark during the preceding. So but the situation is he was not aware of the claims against the we have several pages of claim the findings of facts right. If if we're talking about the fire situation it would have been a claim against her that she compared an answer to an editor of each one of he's never have opted for us is because he didn't see them until Friday after the decision is made correct so how would be one thing I said earlier which is there was no formal complaint against correct we're on the same page there before the ethics committee adjourned and and made its alternate recommendations Senator Clark was called back to the ethics committee and he was asked about the items that were ultimately included in the report and he had an opportunity to address those items in front of the committee. When when was that when we have the chance to address a week ago today okay so on the Friday how how long after that was the report actually released. at my I can't tell you maybe and sixty ninety minutes something like that so with that with that report prepared before you ever heard his testimony what yeah I think I'm going too far too far into divulging what happened in the in the ethics committee proceedings at this point. And and maybe open the door and fairness but I just wanted to I did want to take issue with the notion that this was never discussed with the ethics committee or they never had an opportunity to address it because I don't think that's fair or accurate but I'm with you on making sure that he has a fair proceeding here today I just wanted to to clarify in any misconception about the the due process of the ethics committee proceeding ask this thank. Okay forget. Anybody else. We finished. Okay I'm not going to make a ruling on this so Madam director if you would I want to ask you to call the call the roll. Ballinger founders Jay Beckham. The Commission yea Bledsoe. Bledsoe aye no Caldwell. Caldwell is gay Chesterfield Chesterfield is no Clark Clark is gate Davis. Davis. Davis is DA DISMANG. DISMANG is no Elliott. Elliott. English. English is unknown Flippo. The Fozzy yes flowers. Flowers is a noble for use only Garner. Orders yes Gilmore Gilmore aye yay Hammer. Hammer CA Hendren. Hendren as a no Hester. Yes Hester is a yes Hickey no he's no health. Hello is yes Senator Ingram is on leave Irvin is only Blake Johnson. Blake Johnson is a yes mark Johnson. Mark Johnson is a yes Leding. Leding snow pitch. Pitsch is a no Rapert is only rice. Rice's the a sample. Sample is a no Stubblefield. Stubblefield as a yes Sturch. Sturch is no Sullivan. Sullivan is yes Teague is only Tucker. Stalker's yes Wallace. Wallace's yes. That is telling. Ma'am. Here I'm so sorry can I vote or not vote either way is okay. You can on this because it's not on the ethics so yes ma'am. Okay. All right since we did it that way anyone else wish to vote anyone else wish to change their vote we'll just do it that way on this. Okay now I will tell you that a. Okay by a vote of eighteen days twelve nations that motion is adopted so Senator Hammer you will be allowed. as a witness. Senator Clark if you proceed to your next one. I have I have Senator flowers down if you're I'm not. Okay all right. At this point I think to stay right. You you have some exhibits and then after we do this because you turned all these units appropriate time because we ask you to do this by certain time which was in our Senate procedures. So if you would want to present your exhibits one at a time you have three of them correct. yes what what do you all have. If you do your first. Of. The. Okay. Thank you. The of the first exhibit is just entitled timeline and it just was dates. Of. The I intend to fill in but it will make it easier for members if they have the time line F. as an exhibit. So so what you're telling those this is a working document is not exhibit. The the dates are important but it is an exhibit yes okay these are. Of. Date the things happen and let me again say whatever you want to do. Of. This is a new charge a different charge I've had no. ability to submit evidence before on charges. That I filed frivolous towards. We call it one about that your available on exhibit one Senator Clark are you okay with on the phone with the would you make it would you rather than on the top of it. Our centers are missed the record on top. It's not in the binder this this I'm sorry senate bill again everything that we're doing right now is it is additional that Senator Clark he has to request this of us. But if we if we want to mark that as exhibit one that that might be it might be a wise thing to do. Mr cook would you do that. Okay so I guess center court before we go any further I want I want to ask this. So in my opinion you got an exhibit an exhibit is a document this complete I heard you say that it will be filled in so what you're what you're saying is you've got a document that's going to be a working type exhibit is that is that what you're. Okay. As the mayor. Just clarity of the for the membership so you so you here that my you know whatever I think of or I believe we set the exhibit of courses we would think that that would just be a document that that would be presented Senator Clark has indicated that this is something that he's going to be filling in as we go so. Let me know me but Senator Clark finished I think we've got. Because I don't want to deal with the those with the members of the chamber need to see the exhibit what will our fines are fine staff is made copies and plan for that thank you senator Corker you okay we passes out absolutely I want him to have a. Sir Clark you go in the we. Try to roll roll on proof of. Make a motion that we allow of this exhibit. Evidence. Okay. Sir Clark made his motion. Any center seventy. Questions of Senator Clark. Senator Blake Johnson. You senator Clark. There's nothing on here but date. That is correct. Has. Has it evidence. It's an exhibit. What's what's behind the date. The. The Committee has again. The not reckless stays in my mind but of. The. Has made the charge that I proceeded without evidence and. Without reason and the. The time line will show that that's not the case but I thought it would be easier for you to have the tough I have a time line where you could fill in. The dates. So that the dates were easily saying that one comes after the other. So. Do you want me to go through this. The charges fill in. This is no. I do not. So what happened on July the twenty eighth twenty twenty two I think let's. I think we just need to stay. A. as as it relates to the document itself is where I would see that members that's the document. I understand but. I think I think this is the document is being presented so this is what you're going to be voting owned or it is this document right here. Senator Johnson I'm are you finish or. You're finished. By Senator Hendren yeah I guess is the my understanding we have three of these that we want to have introduced is is it possible for the sake of moving things along that we just take a motion I don't think anybody objects to admit letting him. But whatever evidence he wants to and for for us to you know look at but to go through this for three times can we just combined these make a motion to allow these things to be admitted as exhibits as. No as as our whatever we decided this is the way we decided that each each witness and ET exhibit would have to be done separately. So. Okay then I will immediate consideration on it It meeting this exhibit all right. All members. All opposed. Okay now we will we here we have a motion on this exhibit all in favor of allowing this is it exhibit say aye aye. All opposed say no no. Okay Your present your next one Senator Clark. Yes of Mister chair of the number two is and email of. From the terminal Lewis to me of. and along with the attachment of my per diem of spreadsheet of my party on during of the two thousand twenty one session. The purpose. Is. Of. To both there's the allegation against the amount of time that You might have wasted with staff into is just the to demonstrate that the charges are not frivolous. Staff personal documents of this. That's good does. We got we had exhibit of one on the first one. That was one with the date so we just voted on. Exhibit two. Senator Clark. Before an agreement is going to be. The email is that right. The bill from timber Lewisville site members if you say the email is the one with the mail for miss Lewis if you would mark that as exhibit two. Okay Senator Clark you've a that documents been passed out I want to remind you that your still provide us how that document. It's going to further your testimony. And then I think you've already provided wine. With in a in a broad statement of why and why that you didn't do it before the committee. A I had no way of knowing that it would be needed when I. Of all the charges against senator flowers. Okay. Any questions any questions in regards to this document. Okay. Anyone wish to speak for against this doctor this exhibit. Okay all in favor of allowing this document please say aye. Any opposed. Motion carries. Okay. The next one. I believe already we already passed out of having to miss Garrity okay the next one. Is an email is that correct Senator Clark miss Garrity this is September fourteenth twenty twenty two that is correct ten fifty one AM that is correct Mr Clark that exhibit three. Senator Clark. Your term make a motion to allow this I'd like to make a motion to allow the of the document or whatever call an exhibit number three the. This is the mail does nothing to further my case Mister of except to the enter into evidence that I wasn't contacted to five fifty two Monday about. Getting together evidence and witnesses by Wednesday night. Okay. On the way that we set up our procedures is is that is that you have to state ideas why further your case in your stating it does not further your case it shows the wasn't given a whole lot of time. Okay members Any anyone having questions of a. Senator Clark on this you want to speak for against this one. All in favor favor for allowing this document safely say aye. The opposed. Okay. All right it's my understanding that that includes the ones that you were presented. And then at the beginning of this meeting. What you would have been given the wind speed to get those one soon are we sent we just so everybody here knows with. I had sent a letter to Senator Clark asking him if I remember correctly by this past Wednesday the at noon. I have recommend if I'm wrong that he would provide any witnesses or additional evidence that he wish wish to our president and that's what we just did so now upon coming into this meeting Senator Clark Is approach me and I said I would bring it up is he is also wants to Outside of our procedures present another witness and one more piece of evidence is that correct one more exhibit correct okay so first members I'm going to take a annoys procedures but I will take a motion that if you all want to allow that due to our procedures and then we're going to proceed to the same thing that we've been doing so. Senator Ballinger you have a question that yes and I kind of alluded to this earlier we have procedures that we've adopted that is set up the procedures for a responded to be able to respond in this case senator Clark was never responded right he was he was a petitioner claimed that but he was never responded so I don't I mean I pied. I think that's one reason why we should great a lot of leeway in this case but I don't know that we have any structure rules that says yes to provide anything at any particular time we're gonna go off from the old rules we have probably because of the best that we got to the street the truth is I don't think there's any rules of really pertain to his situation because he is not a respond that which is what the rules were drafted for young and and all fairness and again this is a business meeting were not in session yes Sir and and to be as fair as possible I had directed the staff to do that so that we would go through this whole process just just for that so that's the reason that I use those proceedings that we had in place to go ahead and allow Senator Clark to do that. Now this does move somewhat outside of that since he's asked us to do something that's different than even though we would allow for the regular respond so So I guess members the first thing I will do is is a more. I guess I'm glad to have you make a motion Senator Clark that we're going to suspend our procedures to allow you to present so if you would do that at this time Sir if that's what you wish to do. I asked the body to suspend our procedures. Of so that of. The I can submit I ask you to submit or my asking that now. Okay offered to send your Senator Clark motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Okay Senator Clark that motion passed so if you would do you want to start with your. To ask the body about the witness first of the exhibit first all asked about the exhibit first okay so if you would would again just start with I'd moved to to allow whatever this exhibit is do you have a copy of that. Okay let me ask this can we take a few minutes and let our. I gave you forty copies all I'm sorry they're over on that desk I told you I had forty compensate. All right well. Let's let's hold a so are. All these copies are the same as the one that you have Senator Clark could put this in and criminal. Okay that's all I need to know yes if you don't mind staff to a passes out before he starts. Okay. Thank you Mr of this of evidence is a Facebook post by me make July twenty seventh hold on just a moment everybody has that except maybe. Okay we have one we have exhibit two we have exhibit three. This one that was just passed out for everybody please mark it exhibit four so that at least you'll have that so with this is being referred to if it passes that will have the correct. Ma'am to accept example. Well. I'm not going to set that because he has got the president because he has to prove the supposed to present how it furthers its case. Sir Clark the place thank you Mr chair of the charges but it says that I have continually threatened the committee and tips to use Facebook post to show that of this and also that retaliated against senator flowers of because of her actions of this is a spy Facebook post that I made on Senator sample of who made the motion that was in question with me defending hill of and the somehow the committee miss this and I would like to enter it into evidence. Okay members. You have the document in front of you any questions of Senator Clark. Senator Wallace. You're recognized thank you Mr what is this are what Senator record hot springs in hot spring simple record we just call it center record thank you Sir. Any other questions Senator Clark. He will speak for against this. Senator Clark motion is to allow this exhibit. All in favor please say aye aye. He opposed. Okay that motion will also carry everybody does have a label exhibit four Senator Clark you don't have a witness who how do you want to proceed with that who is thank you Mr chair of. I would like to ask the committee to allow me to introduce Plant Lancaster as a witness as an attorney two of. The fun of. Purposes in the law and to the. The help is determined in the law. From a legal perspective. Per minute turning. Okay you from your first Senator Clark motion. Senate is made you have a question center for. So we're asking for an expert with witness essentially what you're doing but also that same individual is representing you. If your attorney comes down and decides he wants to make himself available self center Senate then there will no longer be attorney client privilege. Between you and that attorney is now we will be asking the questions that anybody in this body deems necessary. That would be the beginning with a but such keeper. Let's keep the orders right now. We were not there is a there there was no other way this. It was a way for you to come up the definition frivolous. The. I think it's much more important coming from an expert attorney that it is coming from me again I'm trying to provide president of the fence. The and. I will waive of. Privileges with this attorney if you wish. Okay I I have some information that I need to present to the far right to do it this way but okay if everybody will look it in our Senate procedures on page two. number six the I want to read this so that you'll have it. This is the respondent may bring his or own legal counsel to the Senate business meeting at which the Senate ethics committee recommendations regarding the respondents are being heard. Respond its legal counsel will only be allowed in the Senate chamber in an advisory capacity to the respondent and shall not addressed the Senate question witnesses make objections to the presiding officer. Respondent's legal counsel shall be seated next responded at the table designated for the responded only so you need to have that information. In front of you because our procedures to say only within a. So Sir Clark do you wish to proceed with what you're trying to do but I don't like to I would like okay I would live for Clint Lancaster to be a witness and not I turned I understand okay what. Anyone anyone have any other questions of Senator Clark Senator Blake Johnson for question the Senator Clark tennis can are Senate count legal counsel. Defined those tires. Without. Without going beyond what we said and procedures. He is our legal counsel he can. He has a definition for those of us Senator Johnson I'm sure he can for you of this is a the my case in defending myself. Of. That's what I'm asking for someone outside to testify. The direct your questions Senator Johnson Senator Blake Johnson. Well I don't know if there's two lawyers in rooms and honors. Three. Right right now members please obviously we've got a we've got to keep our corpsman here okay. Is there any other questions I I'm sorry Senator interagency you earlier you're recognized that Senator Clark question. I don't know what the questioner to point of order you just read the rules that clearly states you can't do this. It's it's against the rules for the attorney to come and address the Senate that's what the rules say so I guess my point of order is if we're going to do this it's a suspension of the rules this compact twenty. We really don't just. Which really not in this in this thing is really not a rule we have procedures so it would probably if we did that and just being eighteen is what it would take because these are actually just our procedures were not operating on the rules. With our business meeting. As it as it relates to these this it is that what you read is not in our Senate ethics rules it's in our nose in our Senate it's in our procedures that we passed here a few months ago whenever we were down here so the in this motion is to violate our Senate procedures to get that's attorney to define why not the law says what are rules say correct that we wrote. That's why you have that information in front of you now yes Sir okay and he's proceeding with his motion and it's up to each one of you all to make that decision so. Anyone else center back. One of the clarifies something that senator Clark stated but I don't think many of us called it and if you could clarify what you asking to have your legal counsel. Excuses legal counsel and become a witness is that what you're asking that was yes that is what I asked. Any other questions. Do you care to restate your question center back on the yes what I heard Senator Clark state was that he will no longer want to. The gentleman here I can cause name to be is legal counsel but one of them to be a witness instead. Is that correct that is correct. Which I don't which personally he's already been recognized is legal counsel and identified him by name which I had that done at the beginning so I don't know how that would work either so anyway. All right. All right any other questions no other questions anyone wanna speak. You want to speak for this motion. You want to speak against it this might service man your dance correct. Send this message against. Members Miller identified someone as an intern or a you know. Attorney whatever may be allowed the privilege said in this room and then we change inside of doubt this point we want them to provide a simple definition or legal definition of the word for Phyllis the other thing I would say as far as furthering the case where we are right now the definition of FIV approval is is what you are being asked to define yourself today not for someone else to find for you that is not a member of this body and so I'm not sure what we're doing anymore at this point but this I mean I I think it's improper number one we will out of our rule specifically stated everybody saw the rules whenever they came out the very last time in your attorney is only supposed participate at that table in a quiet manner with you not before us as some type of expert here at any and for that reason I would I would ask that this particular individual not be recognized as a witness. Okay Senator Dismang spoke against anyone will speak for. Anyone was else will speak against their own. Senator Clarke Tucker will speak against also. I just want to concur with what Senator Dismang said witnesses testifies to fax if you have knowledge about what happened you can testifies that fact there is a opinion testimony offering court times those are expert witnesses the only exception for expert witnesses in a court of law is that you cannot testify to what the law is because that's for the jury to decide in this case the members of the Senate or the jury to add to Senator just makes point now if this gentleman had a knowledge of the facts of what took place perhaps he could be called as a witness to testify to those facts but is defining for us the question that we're supposed to decide that that's for the Senate so I would concur with Senator Dismang somebody's going to ask you a question you want to take it or not Senator Clark thank you bye senator mark Johnson you have a question Senator Tucker to take a question yes. What I was. Inferring from all this laws that the the witness that Sir Clark calls going to speak from and again I'm speculating black's law dictionary or some other document not his personal opinion about the definition of war now you know we killed coming this chamber we have thirty five different definitions of anymore but I hope that what he was trying to share or something and as in legal terms there are established definitions of words and I for one would like to hear that whether it comes from Mr the. Thank Hester or you for me even the chair but I think that again the fact that we're not only you know. Senator Hammer is a prosecutor is also a juror. We're a little different situation here and again I would like to see at least a little leeway on us and knowing the source of that definition rather than in my opinion but you could say blacks law dictionary would you there. The way this process was set up is that a senator who's responded as an opportunity for legal counsel the senator is the one who makes the arguments not the lawyer that's the way that this process was set up Senator Clark is very capable of standing up here and making a case as to why what he did was not frivolous he's a very intelligent well read and I know he'll have the evidence for that he can do that on his own and he can get in arguments from a lawyer that's what the process allows but the way the process was set up is that he has to be the one to make the arguments and his lawyer can say use this definition of rebels from black's law dictionary it'll be persuasive to the members of the Senate and then it'll be up to Senator Clark whether he wants to use that definition or not and make his case that's the way this process was set up and what what this proposal is is basically just an end run around that process to let the lawyer make a legal case but that's that's not what's happening but that's not what's supposed to happen or the procedures that were set up for the Senate. I don't know but reduce surgery center thank you for answering my questions. Senator Flippo you have a question motion from time. I don't think proper time. Please. Just for almost we're almost here with this one. If this is something different. Okay motion for committee consideration. Okay that's a proper motion. Non debatable. All right first of all we're going to vote on the on the immediate consideration all in favor of immediate consideration say aye hi. You oppose. Okay so now we're going to vote on the motion would you please restate that motion. Motion was to allow Cleveland caster as a witness of for the purpose of the funding of. The legal definition of frivolous. And. Because that's what. This case is supposed to be about okay you referred senate Clark motion all in favor Senator Clark motion say aye. Any opposed no. All right the nose habit that does not carry so that fails to. So we were finished with that portion of this time so Senator Clark you can have a seat thank you members of this time we are going to take a five minute recess So everybody would be back here I will say four oh seven. Okay members I'd ask of everyone please take their seats so we can proceed. Lasses. Okay members are back from recess At this time. which I guess will proceed to Senator Hammer presentation the committee findings and recommendations. For what purpose but make a motion you yes Sir you're recognized center Senate dismaying is record recognized for motion if I'm kind of listening correctly I believe that it was in the park stated that he has not had time to adequately prepare in fact you look at the exhibit one he's not have the ability to even fill out his own timeline some sense of that and I understand that with that being said we also have other members have made obligations for this afternoon I do appreciate all the teams we've had but I would like to make a motion that we recess at the call of the chair thank you I know the chair then would then work with staff to make sure that we have an appropriate time for we can reconvene with the appropriate number members. So. Okay there's a there's a motion we have a motion on the floor. We have a second. I also generally simply serve for you go to the whale you have a question of sent out is I have a substitute motion. Okay I move that if we're going to do that that we provide the opportunity for Senator Clark to bring his evidence and presented to the committee itself hello the Committee actually you have hearings they could put on evidence they can look at it and they can actually for this side of the story to be presented to the committee before the body of the compact here's. Okay. For right now we have a substitute motion. And we will take up to substitute we will do the substitute motion unless I hear another motion so the substitute motion right now is and I want to make sure everybody understands it your motion your substitute motion Senator Ballinger is that. We would allow that Senator Clark would go back through the committee process. Just wanna make sure you're just the same as a respondent would do. And the and the whole process would start over is that correct for at least two sides of so far we have charges brought we don't have a response from him as respond. Okay. That that motion that motions on the on the floor Do you want do you want to take questions from a motion down here what I would do it that way let's do it that way I think this will be cleaner because I already see people are got questions. Okay so. Senator Ballinger offered Senator Ballinger Ballinger motion does anyone have a question of Senator Ballinger Ballinger substitute motion that he just made. Okay. We're saying second. Our. No. Senator Solomon you will be your first to ask questions Senator Ballenger in regards to the substitute motion Senator Ballinger just make sure I understand if he goes back to the commission the. There's been no complaint on. And it was routed to go back to the committee no I I agree I mean that the situation is we have a situation where we have no rules at all and I honestly I I think that we should do like we did last time and we should adopt some procedures that we do that we deal with that at least set minimum allow the the the presentation to go because if you were given all the facts you may very well change your opinion then the report to come back out to us could be different and so it as it is now he's never presented his case for defending the the frivolous nature of the report yes follow up Senator Solomon so. Rules the. That the committee may levy approval. So you can recommended can't let yes. The my point being that what committee. Let's make a recommendation that there be a. Correct but there are no ethics complaint for one point would have to go back to the committee it would go back committee because we sent a fax Committee with my most. But any other questions Senator Ballinger Senator Blake Johnson your first senate page you'll be set. Senator Blake Johnson. On the on the motion. Senator Marco Sir. It. How is senator Hammer chair and be a witness to the Committee. So that I think is a is a situation you have to deal with it may be a situation where no I stepped down as chair in order to testify however we do that all the time with committees on a regular basis I don't think it's going to that awkward. Thank you Mr chair I'm on page ten of our booklet and I want to read as short little thing basically it's Senate rule twenty four thirty if the Senate votes to the solver responded of any ethical violations as we did today with twenty nine votes right the membership may levy against the claim of one or more of the penalties not charges the panel I think that's what Senator Solomon is mentioning that this isn't the same as levying a charge against the Senate right. What we are doing is following the rules exactly to a T. with what's going on right now up until your motion which then asked bill the Committee or some other Senator to file a charge what is available in the old rules is the ethics committee as it says. The claim against one or more the penalties as described we have the right may levy against the claim right one or more penalties it's not a charge and we're very I mean we were we talked about that was Steve we knew we could not file charges an ethics committee that's not the process of writing or rules and I agree with you we may choose to change rules that were following the rules there and right now it's so I I think my point is the fact that we just went through a bit of a fiasco trying to figure out things as we go right and one of the things that really kept coming up is he never had a chance to present his side of the of the store the charges against him right dealing with the the from this nature dealing with all has or are the findings where the **** gives an opportunity for the committee to actually hear those things the situation may change so I I mean I don't I don't not disagreeing with you the point is that the there's a there are a lot of the rules aren't they're dealing with when you bring up the the Committee levies penalties for frivolous complaint that Franklin Jett sales. All of them will be quick I like Senator Tucker and the other members of the Senate ethics committee after the motion and the vote. Asked senator Clark to come back in and was questioned again we can't charge we can only question we questioned him about things and social media why did you do this where was it he was on vote today was the vote that she had not had an ethics violation it was very clear that this is done in that manner so my question is I don't know how to relate that to the full Senate but Senate ethics committee knows we follow the rules and we handed the Senate what is Senate rule twenty four thirty two eighty I just wanna that's the response I don't want to say that I got to challenge back you never change things or because we brought it back again and he answered it so let me just make this really clear I'm not I'm not in any way disparaging with committees done it's not because the committee didn't do their job it's because the committee doesn't has never had the opportunity to do this of the committee to the evidence that was presented on the claim are we are we asking questions and four thousand five so fair enough now Senator Clark I see income of a minute ago do you wish to ask a question. Okay if you would give to if you would say your chair and turn your back on would be good Sir. Senator Ballinger waterproof intent. I don't. in the points of our own. Right in line. That being said I don't see. The point. Of going back. To the Committee. But I withdraw my motion okay motions been withdrawal okay now we're going back to the original motion Senator Dismang will you restate your motion. I move that we recess of the call of the chair. Okay we have a motion and a second are there any questions of Senator Dismang and Senator Dismang or you want to take a. All right the first one I will have is going to be Senator Hammer C. Senator hammer you can proceed Sir Senator Dismang reading of from rule twenty four ten AM. Within ten business days of receipt of the findings and recommendations of the committee the president pro tem shall call a business meeting of the Senate to consider recommendation of the committee. I would like you to know I'd like to ask your opinion to maybe ruling of the chair by the fact that we begin the process within ten days going into recess violate either the rule or the intent of the rule for every fulfill the obligation coming in here now okay my response to be that would be number one we've already we've disposed of what we were supposed to dispose of requiring the ten days which that was a charge against seventy flowers red or Senator flowers the second thing they were talking about right now is the recommendation of the penalty that would be enforced only by this body and so I think we've we've done our job within the allotted time frame I've heard from Senator Clark and others in the room that he did not have time to adequately respond or prepare fine I understand that. And so I think it would only be appropriate that we allow that additional time for him to respond and prepare so that we can have a full hearing an appropriate one for him or thank you. But who is. Okay Senator Garner you're you're open to ask questions on the motion yes Sir Baquet back to center hammers consideration what you said was not according to kind of say it says within ten business days of receipt of the findings and recommendations of the committee the president pro tem shall call business meeting the second set the recommendations of the committee so far the recommendations the committees had with this additional punishment so would be arguable that also falls within the ten days requirements is that is part of their official report with recommendation is that not correct what I would say is that the record by the way that I interpret that that has to do the charges brought against senator flowers there's a secondary part of that that relates back to a penalty and actually and I don't have in front of me but I think the way that it reads it doesn't really even say anything about a recommendation by the ethics committee for a penalty that is something that's supposed to be done about this body but they were premium formation had a discussion and didn't make a recommendation on a penalty which again I think it's separate apart from the hearing they held for Senator flowers is it all one report or other separate reports I don't know the answer that I'm not a member ethics committee there's one report okay. The question. You know I have a question Senator Mark Johnson. Yes okay has to be on this motion center just by its its own this motion yes Sir. Senate is by appreciate your thoughts that you're looking at the fact that again in fairness we are all kind of. A new ground here we're sitting presidents that we have to deal with the future that's great I'm glad we're doing it I do agree with the point that by. Mister Senator Hickey calling this today within the the rule we we met at that like any trial beginning if you will call the trial it can be reset it can be continuances he met the requirements of the rules by the fact that we're here on the sixteenth and so I think it would be appropriate to do that I would just ask that you not be in a huge hurry and and would would you agree that perhaps ten days to two weeks would be a more appropriate time to make sure that Sir Clark is given the full time to prepare his case and the insurer due process I mean I think we need to leave it at the call the checks is a lot of background that's going to have to occur and that's communicates with members making sure members can attend adjustments with other items that we may have legislatively that we need to attend it so again I mean what I would say I think what I think everyone plans on being reasonable we have had time he has he has prepared even though maybe not as much as you would like to and so hopefully like to this is this is an additional time regardless I think would be beneficial I agree thank you senator thank. Is there any other questions Senator Dismang. You want me recognize Senator Garner speak against the motion okay Senator Garner will speak against the motion you're recognized Sir thank you chairman. Regardless of your opinion on this issue one way the other other we can all acknowledge and agree that Senator Clark. It's put to a lot of hardship to pressure the last few weeks what do you think that's warranted or not. Is a different question. So after this motion was filed last senator Clark would you like to proceed today or we like to come back at the call of the chair. Sir Clark told me that he would like to see today. He has legal counsel here to attorneys they're here testify he has always witnesses dollars exhibits already into evidence he's done everything he said he could do to be prepared for the night and we as a body are here as well at this time to discuss discuss this issue. Have you want to kick the can down the road. You can do that. We can meet up again and maybe that time were actually come to some conclusion. Senator Clark said he wants to get this done tonight one way the other we can have that argument about what rule twenty four point thirteen says about the recommendation from the committee in if we should hear them barter protection is is that the Senate as a whole the membership not the committee could decide whether we want to do punishments and the punishments we have subscribed a day in the process is similar how we did the ethics committee our complaint against Senator flowers that's how it's laid out the beginning and I think it's the fairest process where he gets to have his day up here to defend this case. That's a long day I know we got a different obligations. But if you want to kick you. Do you want this man to go back home. Sit here and deal with this later. And it come up here deal with this again I can say I don't think I've been in trouble enough I know what it's like to have that day in court and actually have something doing so as his body to not support this motion allow Senator Clark to have his date it will be done with this issue dispose of it one way or the other thank you senator garner spoke against the motion does anyone want to speak for the motion. For the motion. Senator Alan Clark wants to speak against the motion. Senator Clark you will be you're recognized when you get there Sir. Thank you Mr Senator Dismang I appreciate the thought I really do. Only get this over with. I don't care if you vote not hear anything I have to say you can just do whatever going to. It'll fourth K. Senator Alan Clark spoke against the motion anybody else for against our own. Okay we have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed. I'm a rule the nose having. I guess I've got another chance for the roll call madam director if you would call the roll. Ballinger Ballinger votes no Beckham. That converts no. Bledsoe. But let's SO TS Caldwell. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Chesterfield vote yes Clark. Clark both snow Davis. Davis. DISMANG. This mango TS Eliot. Elizabeth yes English. English votes no Flippo. Flippo votes yes flowers. Flowers votes yes bill for is on leave garner garner votes No bill more. Gilmore. No no more votes no Hammer. Hammer vote yes Hendren. And remote yes Hester. Mr vote yes Hickey president. Thank you votes present hello. Hello GS Ingram is on leave Irvin is on leave Blake Johnson. Thank Johnson vote yes mark Johnson. Johnson the No Leding. Letting vote yes Pitsch. It's votes yes Rapert is on leave rice. Ryze built yes sample. Four votes yes Stubblefield. Stubblefield votes now Sturch. Sturch votes no Sullivan. Sullivan both yes Teague is on leave Tucker. Tucker Vaught yes Wallace. Well this vote yes. You won't be recognized. Call the vote yes or. Hi there any is there anyone else in here that that which is the vote Senator Breanne Davis. Senator Breanne Davis is the year anyone else anybody else will wish to change your vote. Tell me to. Okay. By a vote of twenty days nine days. One president. That motion is passed and we will stand in recess. Shall the call until I call this back so that members. Your term.