SANDRA L., PAPPAS President ofthe Senate ‘State Senator Disc 65 323 State Capitol 7S Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Saint Pal, MN 58155-1606 Phone: (651) 296-1802 State of Minnesota senate mn/seatorpappas May 6, 2015 Senator David Hann Senator Dave Thompson Senator Michelle Benson Dear Senators: As you know, the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct met on Monday, April 27 10 address procedural matters regarding the ethical conduct complaint submitted to my office by Senators Hann, Thompson and Benson on April 13. At the hearing, Senators Hann and ‘Thompson, members of the subcommittee, and Senator Hayden were given the opportunity to speak to whether the complaint was properly submitted under Senate Rule 55, in light of the complaint that was submitted to the subcommittee on September 24, 2014, and further acted ‘upon by the subcommittee on November 5, 2014 Because I do not believe Senate Rule 55 provides any member of the Senate the right to submit unlimited and duplicative complaints arising from same underlying circumstances that form the basis for a pending complaint, | do not intend to hold any further hearings on the April 13 complaint at this time. | believe Senate Rule $5 must be interpreted to prevent the fundamental unfairness inherent in the consideration of multiple subsequent complaints based ‘on the same inextricably intertwined events that are already under consideration by the subcommittee, Even a brief comparison of the April 13 complaint with the September 24 complaint shows that although there are additional details and information added to the material presented in the September 24 complaint, the underlying behavior and conduct that forms the basis for the April 13 complaint is the same as the conduct described in the September 24 complaint. Therefore, I do not think Senate Rule 55 requires the subcommittee to commence additional proceedings that would duplicate a matter already under consideration. Senators Hann and Thompson have called the subcommittee’s attention to the portion of theit April 27 complaint regarding the truthfulness of Senator Hayden's testimony before the subcommittee at the hearings held on the September 24 complaint. They have asserted these allegations are so separate and distinct that they require a new proceeding to deal with them. It is fundamentally unreasonable and illogical to suggest that these claims should be addressed in a separate proceeding before the complaint concerning the underlying conduct that is the subject of the allegedly false statements is resolved. To read Senate Rule 55 to allow anuntimited ability for complainants to commence duplicative proceedings based on their assessment of testimony concerning as-yet unresolved allegations would open the door to a potentially never-ending series of complaints from dissatisfied complainants. I believe the precedent established by previous subcommittees is the proper and fair method for dealing claims concerning false or misleading testimony. This precedent allows the subcommittee, in the event it determines that discipline should be recommended to the Senate, to further determine whether the Senator defending claims of ethical misconduct was sufficiently candid with the subcommittee in any dealings related to the complaint. In conclusion, I do not believe Senate Rule 55 requires me to provide an unlimited opportunity for complainants to commence new proceedings related to same conduct already under examination by subcommittee. The most fair and efficient process is to treat any new information or allegations related to the same conduct as a supplement or amendment to the September 24, 2014 complaint. Therefore, as I have said previously in this letter, 1 do not intend to hold any separate hearings on the April 13 complaint. Sincerely, anda F Foppac. Sandra L. Pappas Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct Ce: Senator Tony Lourey Senator Bill Ingebrigsten Senator Mary Kiffmeyer Senator Jeff Hayden Mr. Charlie Nauen