 Secretary Miller, could you just do a preview of last meeting? Mr. Chair, at the last meeting there was discussion as to how to proceed. There was an motion by Senator Ford, which generally would have introduced a resolution or a motion that said the Senate in very concise terms would take up the McCollister issue after the criminal trials, criminal procedures were completed. There was some debate at that time and I was asked to draft up two different forms of resolutions. Those went through various iterations and what you have before you is a draft I was requested by Senator Beruz, which would and possibly others have a suspension of Senator McCollister. At the time that we met the original version was probably going to be some form of expulsion. Subsequent to that it has transformed into a potential suspension with lots of work by both our office and by the Ledge Council, including Quincy Rads, to find out background on suspensions and the feasibility of suspensions and where they've been used in the past. And the second resolution and motion paper in front of you is one that Senator Florey which would establish a new Senate rule put in as a rule 102 that when there were criminal charges against the Senator there would be a special committee established and then that committee would meet and during the time period that the charges were pending or they would await taking formal action until the criminal charges and the criminal charges were resolved. Okay so what I'd like to do prior to us going in and discussing these specific resolutions, could you tell us, you mentioned that you've been meeting with Betsy Rads from Ledge Council to discuss the issues of whether it be expulsion, suspension, what that would mean, whether it's had any other history throughout the country in any other bodies. Can you kind of just give us a little bit of some data on that? Yes Senator, generally there are four courses that the Senate could follow. There are some agreements but there are generally four courses. One of them is you have the power to expel. You have the power to take either no action, you know, the power sort of to delay action and then you have gradients in between. The Constitution provides that you have the power to expel. That doesn't mean that that's your only power in disciplining various Senate members. Looking through other sources, our Mason's rules, other Parliamentary sources, you have an ability to sanction, suspend, to intermediate sort of penalty for different types of behavior that the Legislature signed up to take. More directly on, I think your question was that as part of this gradients of potential discipline, one of them is suspension. I was asked to potentially look into that. I didn't have as much familiarity as it being used elsewhere in the country to be honest. And so the way I approach these things is to try to find where there is some precedent or some other place that's addressed the issue. And most recently, through some research, most recently, California in 2014 suspended three Senators. All at the same time, the same resolution. And I can give you much more background on that if you want. But that's sort of where I started. I wanted to know more about the process to make sure that any of the alternatives you may pursue has some sort of foundational and parliamentary precedent somewhere. And so I spent some time actually on the telephone with a couple members of the California Senate Secretary's office exploring how they went about the process and what they did. And that is, I guess, a abbreviated version of the background for the version in front of you on suspension. It's a bit different process than expulsion because it's not permanent. And the expulsion aspect, as I mentioned in that meeting, we many of us have concerns as to if expulsion was, in fact, sought that it could interfere, potentially interfere with any current criminal action that's pending. So if you could just review if it was an expulsion, what would that require us to do under the rules if that was being sought? It's pretty clear. I think there's general agreement with anyone I've talked to both here in this building and elsewhere that if you are doing an expulsion because of its permanent nature, there is established case law and precedent that you have to follow. And that precedent would require a hearing, some minimal... I hate to use the term due process because it's sort of loaded. It's not the same as a criminal due process, but there is due process. Administrative. It's just a little different form. But there are some minimums. You have to give a notice. You have to have a hearing. You have to have a foundation. Probably depending on which case law you look at, you probably have to have anyone who's having the investigation done the right to go and ask questions. Maybe be represented by a lawyer. Probably have to be given the opportunity to. The question then becomes, what pays for the lawyer? There's just a lot of process that's out there. And each of the different cases have addressed it slightly different. So it's not as if it's uniform. It's because as I've seen, some require less and some require more. But it is, from at least my opinion, that if you go through an expulsion hearing, there would need to be formal charges. You could potentially start off with an investigation, and then formal charges would have to be brought, and then the charges would have to be investigated, and there's a whole series of steps that would need to be accomplished to go through a full expulsion. A suspension, given that it's a little bit different and it's not permanent, there are different sort of requirements. And it doesn't appear by looking through precedent and talking to California that, in that sense, you need to do a full hearing. Now, it's a little bit less black and white or clear than the expulsion. But the precedent that I was able to find was that it's not, at this point, no one has gone through the full hearing process to do a suspension hearing. No one's challenged it to say that you're happy. But if one wanted to try to look at gradients, I do not believe that you would need to do a full hearing, full due process, if you in the Senate decided to suspend for a day. Because you have the power to suspend for a day for misbehavior, certain types of misbehavior. If you in the Senate in their duties thought that was the appropriate sanction, I do not believe you need to go through the full hearing due process. And similarly, you wouldn't need to do one if you were doing an indefinite suspension, because that's nothing more than an expulsion. And that is one of the reasons through my research and speaking quite a bit with California, the language you have before you is nearly identical to their language. And that's why there's an end when it talks about dismissal. If the trial occurs and the charges are dismissed, not guilty, they're just dismissed by the state. The suspension is immediately revoked and in that sense it's sort of like a trigger. It's not indefinite. And that's the language that California used. And once again, they were not challenged. They understood that there might be a challenge, but they felt, with my opinion from conversations, that they didn't think there would be one and they didn't think it would be successful. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a challenge. So again, just to, I want to make sure of this, because the concern that a lot of us have, again goes back to the pending criminal case, which obviously the defendant is absolutely guaranteed of rights under the Constitution, also the state. We're concerned about interfering with the state's ability to prosecute this case, whether it be due to contact with witnesses or requesting the law enforcement to express all of their specific investigation. So I want to make sure. I apologize. This was more a targeted question. I think I addressed that with a way. So I'm sorry I didn't cover it directly the first time. If you were going to do a full hearing, you need to bring in witnesses, at least in my opinion. You get a lawyer, you're going to get numerous lawyers, you need different opinions, but I would be hesitant to have the Senate do a hearing based on affidavits. And so in that sense, I think you need to have people come in and testify. And you, Senator, you've mentioned at least two different groups that would probably need to at least be called. There may be other groups, but one of them is the police and one of them is the alleged victims. And if they come in and testify, there is a potential for an impact on any trial. And I can't, without knowing, hindsight's 20-20, foresight's not necessarily. And so in that sense, without knowing exactly what we're going to testify to, I can't tell you who would definitely affect the criminal charge, but there is a risk that as those questions were asked, it could have an impact. And indeed, the other side of that coin is there might be a hesitation to provide information to the Senate with the criminal charges by some of the people you might have to request to come in and testify. And I haven't been able to sort out all of your options if we're not there yet as to what you would do if people came in and completely declined to provide information because of the pending criminal charge. And that may create additional issues if you start a process. So the, I guess the very concise answer would be there is a potential that it could impact a criminal trial because you would have to go and have a much more elaborate hearing and bring in witnesses. Okay. I have a question from the other side of it, and I'm not on the rights of the people represented by the Senate there. And I know I've heard from some and I understand they've contacted the State House and my, in looking up the Constitution and the oath of office we take, which is part of the Constitution, it says, let's see, in section 16, let me go back, we will not consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge there, referring back to the constituents, rights and privileges as declared by the Constitution. So I guess my concern and my question is if we do a suspension, then we have a prolonged period of time that the residents in that area are being denied their constitutional right to fair representation. And as the court declared in Buckley, if anyone brings it up, that the individual's right to, is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion deluded, and then it goes on to other things. So one of my concerns is if we go ahead and vote to suspend and either the Senator fights it or the constituents fight it, where are we then? It's a rotten situation to be in right now. I wish it had never happened, I wish the trial were over, but we've got to play with the cards that are dealt with. You're asking two separate areas. I'm going to take the challenge by Senator McCollister first, because I think it's slightly easier to use it. So if Senator McCollister is suspended and not expelled, depending on, if you're doing it indefinitely, it's a problem. If you're doing it for a limited one-day period, I think that the chances of the challenge being successful are very minimal. As you know, Senator, anything can happen in the court of law. And so sometimes it's, and nothing's as black and white as maybe it used to be long ago. And so there's lots of grain as to how successful a challenge would be. In between one day indefinitely. Now, I don't mean to be, I think the practical side of it is, if this is looked at as a suspension for the body, then a challenge to a suspension leaves you with still, whether that's successful or unsuccessful or dependent, now it'll get you back to what your other options are. And your other options, the nice thing about a resolution on a suspension is it can be modified, changed. Lots could occur in the next month or two or five months. It's not as if it's permanent, so you can always revisit it. The other thing you can always revisit is, if it turns out that the senator wants to pull its hearing in the Senate chamber, you can start expulsion hearings. Now, as the other senator mentioned, that may create an issue with the trial, but the fallback position is sometimes watch what you ask for because you may get something different that you don't like even as much. And so, I am, one can challenge lots of things and there's lots of different ways of approaching legal issues, but I believe that in, as long as there's a definitive trigger, it should be okay in the court. What about the... Which means that that long answer, I told you that was shorter and easier. So, a couple things on that. I believe or explored some of it. I didn't explore it through the constitutional provisions. I am slightly familiar with what you cited, including Baker, and so I buckled. And so, I am, some of that is, I haven't explored as much yet, but I will tell you what I have explored. So, with California, I discussed that with them. It was not challenged out there, there was some questions about it. There was some media attention to it. Indeed, in that one, it was kind of unique. One of them was, this was in late March, early April, when they were suspended. One of them actually was convicted, maybe October, late September, they immediately resigned. California has term agreements, and so the other two termed out that November. So, one thing, and what, is that, how long is that when they're using the same language so I don't know whether it has to be a two month, but I... But they also don't have this in their constitution. The real issue is, if one looks at this and believes what one reads, which you always have to keep with the game, well, the trial is scheduled for February. That's the best information I have currently. And that, if it's a suspension, one can at least look at it as a six to eight week suspension. You all, as the Senate, can readdress it at any time. If the trial doesn't occur February, it's nice the beauty of the resolution. And when I looked at it sort of that way, there have been senators missing for long periods of time. At least two that I'm familiar with in the last five to ten years. I don't really want to get into it, but there's been at least two in. Given the term way this resolution is drafted if the trial occurs in February, then that's no different than some of the other kinds of senators have been missing. Once again, I'm assuming that the response is, we challenged it, but it's the same length of time. I guess, John, I just, people that were missing were missing for their own reasons, health, or reasons like that. It wasn't that they were suspended and prohibited from acting under their title. The two parts would be, one is the citizens are in no different position. Because the senator could come back, they don't have anybody on the floor to vote for that senator's vote. So it's from the constituents, at least I look at it, it's sort of the same. Secondly, under Mason's rule, you clearly have the ability to suspend from nonattentives. And that's the, Mason's mentions the term suspension as a punishment for not being here. And so in that sense, not that it was addressed at the time, but you would have had the power to suspend then. Suspension is also mentioned in some other parliamentary while there's uses and pushings. That's kind of where California went to look for support, because they also use Mason's. So I think that there is a danger if you made it indefinite where that line is and where it would be successful. I am not a constitutional lord. And so when the challenge comes, it's going to be, is the court going to think that this is an appropriate legislative function and stay out of it? And the more well that, my advice and thought is, the more well-defined the suspension and if it's triggered, the safer you are if you go down that road. I don't have any questions for the secretary. I think you just answered my question, John. Let's play out scenarios. I understand that if the suspension resolution was advanced, your understanding is that there would not necessarily be a hearing. Gentlemen. I'm sorry. You're troubled hearing you, and I actually want to hear you. We all want to address that. That's a new change for me. I want to glorify the moment. But if in fact the suspension resolution goes forward, the chances of a hearing are decreased. Am I reading that in comparison to an expulsion motion? The chances. The precedent is that if you are doing a suspension, you don't have to go through a full-blown hearing process in a senate. That answers that question. Let me just give you a little background. There's not like there's a whole slew of cases out there. When I'm giving you an answer, I want to make sure that I give you the full package on this. I talked to California for a long time. They believed that they didn't have to and because it was a disciplinary sort of function that was within their power. Did they think that there was no chance it would be challenged? Well, in their instance, I believe they were slightly worried but at that time the quotes in the newspaper from the senator's attorneys were saying were happy. They didn't look like there was going to be a challenge. The downside of howling very little hearings is if the senator decides to challenge it, it gives them an argument. Now, whether or not it's one that's successful, you know, senator, it's hard to predict, but the precedent would be it's not required. I have not found any place out there where somebody held somewhere that a hearing was required for a suspension. I haven't found it. No, I'm fine. One last question then we'll go to the individual presentation of the resolutions and this goes to the fact that there's one course called for suspension, the other one calls for the commission or the formation of the commission or committee to look at this. What is your view, are these mutually exclusive? Is these two... I haven't been asked that. The rule... I guess I should have shown you the... You know, I suppose they're not... Technically, the senate could pass them sequentially and still be okay. Meaning the senate, if they're... I don't want to play logic games with you, but if you wanted to say whether there's circumstances could you pass them both. I think you could pass the one of Senator Beruse first and then pass the one for Senator Florey second because you've already taken the action with Senator Beruse to suspend them and then if you don't change the rules till after that's done, then it doesn't apply to the first resolution. It does because I want to make sure that we're very clear about it. Although, and correct me if I'm wrong, once we got to the floor, if Senator Florey's was passed first, that would preclude the passage on the floor of my resolution. Senator, I mean, the real trigger issue is it would make it difficult, but not impossible, and secondly, it could make it very, very necessary. I'm going to give you two scenarios that come to mind. First, I'm going to ask this question also. The first scenario is that even if a new rule is added, if the remainder of the Senator wanted to suspend the rules, they could do the second one. I'm sorry, that's a bad one. So if a new rule is added, I forget the number one or two, and then the second one was brought up and it was raised the point of order that that violates the Senate rules, and I think you could suspend rule 102 and take up the resolution, and so that's the more difficult path. The more interesting path, and one that I recommend again, because this current job chaos is not my goal, is that your rules can be amended by a majority. And so you kind of get in this hopscotch-ing thing that if the rule 102 is enacted and it's just 16 that don't like it and don't want to apply it, you could reinvent the rules, and then it gets really messy and ugly. But a majority, as I told, I think every Senator on this panel, in the end the majority rules in the Vermont Senate, you don't mind getting your hands real dirty, not that you should be getting them legally. The majority is a pejorative sexier adult. I don't think that's what you mean. It's going to be messy. And so that's one of the reasons that... I take the point and I appreciate the clarification. I suppose I'm in under normal order. It seems just one of the practical effects of Senator Victoria's, which she'll describe in a minute, says if criminal charges are pending, the committee shall suspend further activities and not meet again until the charge is done. So unless we did some extraordinary maneuvering, I hear you saying that would preclude. You know, interestingly, I have to think about this. So I think, but here's what I think. I mean, you as the Senate can have a rule and I don't know whether that fully finds an expulsion motion or a different disciplinary matter. And so you're asking a question. I'm not sure I understood as deep as it may really be. If you have a rule that sets up a process when there's a criminal charge, that's the default process. And now all of a sudden the Senate decides we want to do some kind of discipline. Not expulsion, but basically says we want to suspend for a day. I have to think about whether or not that violates the rule because you're not going to have to have an investigation for a suspension. I just hadn't thought. Your question is deeper than I originally thought. And so I'm not sure they're inconsistent. I don't want to take the side of your way, Senator, but I might be shallower. And what I mean by that is, I said it may not be deeper, my question. It may be closer to the surface because what I think I'm talking about is the intent of the two resolutions, not necessarily the depth of power the Senate has to undo rules that are passed. So my question is probably better reserved for our discussion of the actual resolution. I just hadn't really thought. I think by doing a rule, you're not necessarily depriving your chamber of having certain inherent powers. And if this is the way that the, I think it's currently drafted, maybe if there's charges and you're going to investigate for those charges, I think there may be other types of sanctions or discipline you might be able to take outside of that. But I just think about that. And I don't know whether that includes a suspension. I just haven't, I honestly haven't thought into it. Now I'm going to have one other procedural issue just to make sure because what I would like to do is to have these presented and we'll discuss them both. But I do not want the order in which I take them to be given for any specific weight to be given as to which would be presented first on the floor. So does everyone agree with that? Joe? We could pass both but on the floor what we passed first today might be second on the floor, right? So I just don't want to have any, we don't want to race to the order. Do you see what I'm saying, John? Also, if we're filing these, these resolutions have to be filed. That's the other kind of the backup to this question is if the resolution is filed, if one is filed before the other. But interestingly, I don't know what kind of version so if it's a committee resolution, then it's coming out of the committee. If it's introduced by an individual, so there's a couple of different tracks these could follow. Resolutions are slightly different than bills. You all recently gone through the bill process had a deadline, you give the OK to let the council, they send the producer proofing, they send it to the printer and it's not our offices are really too involved until we receive them back. They come back, they go online. They're already online if you're looking, senators. The resolution is a bit different. Depending on what kind of resolution it is, there's a little bit different path. Frequently, the typical path is that they're drafted in let's counsel, they're brought up sort of in a preform and then we put them in the final form, we number them, we put them together. So there's a bit of a distinction in the two different processes. So when you're, if there's a committee resolution, if there's sort of one resolution that comes out of this committee, probably, there's two or three little resolutions we have to do that are joint resolutions. We can adjourn them, blah, blah, blah, blah. But this would be the first sort of new stuff that would be introduced. Let me stop because I know where you're going, but that's not where I'm going to ask and what I really want to get at is we have two resolutions that are not mutually exclusive. And the fact is that there was a possibility that we could pass both of these resolutions through this body today. You could pass through the committee, they would be introduced. Yes. And if you took them up, I'm fairly confident if you took them up the suspension and then the rule changed, they're not included. The other way I have to put some more thought into it, I just want to be, I don't want to be misunderstood. We're just trying to make you earlier keep a seven days article today. You are. I hear you saying that they're not mutually exclusive and I believe that in an intellectual and absolute sense, but the thrust of the two resolutions are headed in the opposite direction. One indicating that the Senate should hold off on action. The other providing a vehicle for the Senate to take action. So I wouldn't want there to be confusion that somehow these are in parallel with one another if they're not mutually exclusive. I don't, it's up to you to decide how you want to proceed. I think you could potentially, at least procedurally, pass the vote. The impression that it gives is on my pay grade. But it wouldn't violate any rules depending on which sequence you use. The only I have what I'm gathering is you may there's distinctions in a way that these are introduced and I just want to, I guess I have to address this. So if this committee decides to support both of these resolutions, they're both going to come out of the committee and they will go on, there's three options, I don't want to get too far, but it'll probably go on for action the following day. There's three different options we can talk about that. The difference, the distinction would be if this committee supports one and then an individual Senator introduces one, that one that the individual Senator introduces, my recommendation will probably be to refer that to the committee. I'm sorry, which one? I'm not saying which one, I'm just saying if both of these resolutions come out of this committee, it's sponsored by the Senate Rules Committee, they're going to get numbers and they're going to be read on the floor and then there's two different ways kind of through the process, they're going to react it on. Unless the Senate decides to the overall body can vote by majority to refer to the committee and do whatever they please with it. The second option is only one is supported by the committee and then the other is introduced by a Senator individually or a group of individuals. If that occurs, the one that's supported by the committee will get a number, will go through that process of being on the floor unless the Senate decides to be heard. The second one is introduced by an individual committee, my recommendation to the presiding officer will be that that's referred to a committee. So that makes a difference to you. Although am I correct that if one came from the Rules Committee and it reached the floor, a Senator could produce a substitute? Yes. No. Maybe I'm maybe I'm not getting as once again as deep as you are. In other words, without going through the committee process. Right. So that's a different issue and you're asking whether or not these two are mutually exclusive. Maybe that's the question I'm in. If one of these is on the floor, I'm not sure the other one is germane. Right. That's your question. Either way if Senator Flores is supported by the committee and that's on the floor that is a rule change and if someone then decided to substitute a suspension of Senator McAllister for the rule change I'm not sure that's germane. And just like if this committee supports a suspension of Senator McAllister and Senator Flores decides to then go and move for a rule change as a substitute, I don't think it's true. The final before we go to Representative Flores, Secretary, how's that? Senator is that if we go as a committee and we're going to support the suspension resolution that's what comes out if any senator wants to subsequently change the rules as far as how the procedure for such an action would take place in the future they can then introduce a bill or what once were correct and they could introduce an amendment or a substitution that would be germane. There are some other language that could make. If we could, I want you to go ahead and explain yours. Thank you. I did this for a couple of reasons. I will continue to offer it for a variety of different reasons. One, the idea of having to go through an expulsion just struck me as against the very grain of what we believe in and that's the presumption of innocence. I worried me that by doing that we would either be jeopardizing the prosecution's ability to prosecute or the defense ability to properly defend. However, to ignore the fact that there is something going on in the senate also raise some concerns. The difficulty for me is we have nothing in our rules. We have nothing in the law that addresses this. It isn't frankly just in our chamber. We have it with all sorts of elected officials. When I really got thinking about it it occurred to me we've had a variety of elected municipal officials charged with crimes of embezzlement, other things that nobody can take any action on because when someone is elected the power belongs to their constituents and we don't have a right of recall as constituents. So what I tried to do was address it so that when someone is charged with a felony we immediately form a committee and I tried to model this a little bit as a cross between our child protection committee that the senate formed last year and the house ethics rules because they did pass an ethics policy and rules. I'm not sure I like all of them but one of them specifically says that if a representative is charged with a crime the ethics panel shall have no jurisdiction until that's adjudicated. What this does is it changes our rules to say we create the committee however the committee has no authority to take any action until entry of judgment of the charge. Not an appeal period once a verdict is rendered or a plea is entered into the committee could take action and it is not entirely tied to a guilty or innocent verdict. This is not specific to Senator McAllister this is for any of us in the future. The person could be found not guilty the committee still has to meet and decide whether in fact any disciplinary action might be considered because you might be found not guilty of criminal activity but the committee may still feel that the behavior was such that it casts the Senate on a bad light or anything else and might want to take action. So that's what this is designed to do to leave the authority open once a verdict is entered but to not interfere with the criminal process and still protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the constituents of the accused. And that's why I'm off of that. Yes. This is one charge of the crime which obviously does not have to say felony. I guess the other thing too is that there are many levels of felonies. I understand. Are we just talking about any felony here? Yes my intent was felony and I thought we had changed that felony. Because quite frankly if it's an settlement you probably still want to take a look at it if it's a senator and the senator he or she has been charged with it. I don't think it necessarily has to be the listed crimes. I think it could be any crime. John if I may. So Senator I believe mentioned that the house has passed a rule indicating that they didn't have jurisdiction if criminal charges were pending and I'll ask Secretary Blumer if I might because I don't know if I have this right. Am I right that? That was the ethics panel's internal regulation. The house did not pass that. Right. And I wouldn't speculate about the other body but I believe one of the reasons for that could possibly be that they might not be able to pass that through the other body because what it involved is the body that you weren't going to speculate. I said it may be. I think what it involved is in this case the Senate unilaterally disempowering itself in all future cases as well as this case if there are felony charges pending. So that's my main reason for opposing this and I think there are two parts of it and the first is the creation of a committee and in other words it has moved to us and then if we were to create another committee I think we're moving down the wrong road. I think we need to provide leadership on this issue and on this particular question the question of Senator McAllister. So to that question which I believe is the real reason we're here today is that the special committee shall meet within two legislative days after being appointed and here's the crucial language if the criminal charge is pending shall suspend all further activities and shall not meet again until the entry of judgment as to the charge. And again if I'm wrong on any of this please correct me but if we pass this and let's say we didn't pass the suspension resolution on this and the Senate concurred we would be prevented from acting in Senator McAllister's case. I believe that's exactly the reverse of what this committee rules committee should be doing. I think we should act in this case we certainly shouldn't refuse to act and then refuse to act in every case in the future. So I can't support this and I appreciate the sentiment that brought it forward. You're partially correct. This says the Senate will not be judge and jury. The Senate will wait until the judge and jury gives a decision and then will take action not necessarily in conformance with the judge and jury but the only thing I would say in response is we are set up as a different branch of government from the judiciary. We're supposed to regulate ourselves so I don't think we're supposed to be judge and jury but I do believe we're supposed to regulate our own members. My question would be once the court has decided this committee why is the committee still involved once the court has decided innocence or guilt and the jury says it comes back to the committee shouldn't it be ended with a court's decision? I don't think so because in my mind as I said if the person is found not guilty there may have been evidence or admissions of something that the Senate still believes it is necessary for the Senate to take action on and that's why I put it in. If if the Senate if the person is found guilty my guess is that the committee would take very quick action based on the fact that there was a finding of guilt but if there was a finding of not guilty the committee still could or the committee could say we have nothing to do and disband it would be their choice. Here's my concern with it and I'm sorry that I'm going to jump to Senator Benning and let's just take the current situation out of off the table for a second. Let's talk about any issue is the fact that I see this as we're dealing with two specifically different issues and different avenues. You have the criminal courts if there's a criminal there's a crime charge or you have the criminal courts where there's a burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and there are certain many not just constitutional but also procedural protections afforded to the defendants in those cases we are not a we the Senate are not a court of law that judges the criminal actions or criminal activity I think what we are is a body and legislative body that makes a decision that whether a senator who is currently sitting whether they have either breached the oath of office which they took or if they their actions have subjected them to not to be able to perform their duties as a senator and they're the work of proof is not a beyond a reasonable doubt we have a decision to make I think it's authorized in the rules and in the Constitution for us to provide disciplinary action as does pretty much anything else if you have let's say the teachers or if there's a teacher who commits a crime or for allegations that there might have been some activity with them with a student or with something even outside of that they clearly can be suspended pending the outcome of a of a trial I think what we're saying that this resolution is basically saying is that we feel that activity if we went on and continued this precedent was that the activity of a senator rose to that level of where we believe that person should be temporarily suspended from their duties as a senator so that's the part that concerns me about your resolution because I think it's bringing us into a totally different venue well actually I think what you just said is why I put in answer to senator Mazza's question that once there is an adjudication once there's a verdict the committee then needs to decide even though it didn't rise to a criminal level does the behavior rise to a level that the senate should take action on because you're right there's different levels of proof there's different expectations what if there was a case that involved one senator doing something not necessarily a sexual action but they're doing something assaultive or something to another senator under your situation if they were charged criminally they could not we could not act whereas if it was somebody would just say that someone came in drunk in one day and decides he's going to punch out senators if under your rule regulation we would not have an ability to suspend that person to do anything to that individual we may think might be pose a danger to fellow senators or other people in the building my guess is if that person came in and pounded me and I went to the police that person would have been arrested and if that person were in fact a danger to society that's one of the few reasons that we can not issue bail so that person would not be out coming to assault me again or I would have the protective orders in what we're talking about in the instant case is the person is out on bail has no conditions of release prohibiting them from associating with the general public none of those usual and customary conditions of release that you would put in place for someone that you believed was a danger to the general public not in place you in fact had someone that came in and assaulted you had a senator that came in and assaulted one of us my strong belief is they would be arrested they would have conditions of release that would included it may say they can't come in here can't be around me now that would bring us to the other problem of the constitutional protections of the constituents we're talking a whole lot of what ifs and it's as secretary said I found four different states where they've tried suspensions or expulsions they were not challenged so we're in uncharted territory we don't know what's going to happen now all of us realize that I tried to put out something that I thought protected the criminal process with the least amount of risk to all involved that would give the public the reassurance that we are taking this matter seriously but we are also taking the constitutional rights of the prosecution and defend it seriously well, we're not debating the bail we're all going to jump can I first ask you a question the language says the entry of judgment has to the charge is being the triggering mechanism for when a committee would reconvene for whatever reason if there was a stay pending appeal of that entry of judgment are you asking that the committee not do anything until the appeal is over as well that's why we specifically put entry of judgment as to the charge did not get into the appeal what I'm asking is if for whatever reason the court stayed entry of judgment pending appeal is it your intention to have the committee reconvene only after the appeal is heard my intent was upon entry of judgment and if you want to question the way it's written I'll refer it to either Ledge Council or Secretary Bloomer both of whom worked on drafting it Secretary Bloomer can I ask you that question do you read this if the court for whatever reason stayed entry of judgment pending appeal are we literally with this language saying the committee cannot reconvene until after the appeal is resolved I'm going to give you two answers Senator I would only expect since there are four attorneys around the table that we do have six different so my first answer to you is it would foreclose if the entry of judgment is if the court delays entry of judgment then you can't take any action until that's relieved by the court if you get into a bigger argument over what's the difference between the legislature can they interfere with judiciary you might be able to do it but a clear interpretation or straightforward interpretation would be you'd probably have to wait the second answer is I'm not trying to pass the buck but this was not part of the language I did so I don't have any intent as to what the intent was but my reading of this would be that if there was a stay but I'm not sure what the intent was okay can I ask who actually drafted that the version I got had Luke Marlin Luke can I ask you the same question would it be your interpretation with this language if I'm sorry I just want to come out of your question just because we're trying to be extra formal it's very rare to be interested in an issue Luke I understand that you're the drafts person for this particular phrase and I'm speaking specifically about the phrase that reads the special committee shall meet within two legislative days after being appointed and if the criminal charges pending shall suspend all further activities and shall not meet again until the entry of judgment has to be charged am I correct in assuming that you drafted that language yes you are I do am I safe in assuming that with that language in your opinion that if there was for no reason a state of judgment pending appeal that this committee could not reconvene until after the appeal had been resolved not necessarily the intent was to ensure that after a trial this special committee community and it did not have to wait for the appellate process to be resolved the specific question that you're asking senator was not something that I discussed earlier sponsoring this resolution the language used that phrase used is from Vermont statutes so it's meant to reflect phrasing as used for example title 13 in another context this is not an issue that we discussed with sponsor so I would have to look into it I know the intent of the sponsor please correct me if I'm wrong was once there was a verdict at trial the trials resolved as to any of the charges then the special committee could meet and take action did not have to wait for appeal if there was a verdict but the entry judgment was stayed I don't know what the sponsor's intent was I can't answer if that would mean that the special committee could not meet we might have to massage this language if the committee wishes to do so you would agree with me I take it that if we left the language as is and passed this resolution that it would provide an argument to someone affected that if there's an appeal and the entry judgment hasn't been entered yet that they have the right to have that appeal process play out yes I agree with what you just said thank you that was the only question I had I do have a position and I don't know when you're going to take the position is there any further questions for Peg or for John or for Luke seeing them Peg if you want to and before we vote on this what I'd like to do is Norm is here and just to offer you and a time if you want to make any statement that's up to you you don't have to I would say I don't think any of us want to hear anything about the allegations or about any of the charges but at some point I think before we actually vote on this I would like to give Norm an opportunity to wish on would it be more appropriate to have that well I think because I hear Peg saying that she doesn't necessarily mean to speak to Norm's case and if I can just ask procedurally my understanding is my motion is on the floor since I made it at the last rules meeting and we tabled it until it could get reduced to writing am I right that's what's taken up here first it may not be taken up on the floor first correct but what I'm getting at is what I think would be preferable here and you will is if we already have discussed yours we want to have various opinions have to be voiced on that then here before we vote on it then here the suspension and then we go back to the voting in order to give Norm an opportunity to speak before an actual vote is taken that's what mine what I would like to do go ahead thank you so this is the one sentence resolution that I believe you have to give it a bit of context at our last rules committee meeting we considered two options one was expulsion and the other was a form of having the senate express the desire not to act where criminal charges were pending and in that sense we were of two minds I will say that I was substantially persuaded by some of the arguments against expulsion particularly the senate president pro tem's argument that it could impact the ongoing criminal trial and so what I set out to do was try to find a middle ground between the senate expressing a desire and a permanent rule to not act in such cases and expulsion and so what that led me to was suspension and having looked at the California process and having studied it to a certain extent it seems to me what happened in that process was their body moved more and more towards simplicity so there were three separate resolutions that went into their rules committee they were longer they had where as causes their rules committee in what I think was a very wise move whittled it all down to one resolution of one sentence repeated for each of the three defendants now why is that why in this case and people have used different adjectives to describe it it's muddled, it's confusing it's dicey it's a million different not good things and I think to the extent that the rules committee can serve the function of clarifying and leading, regulating and organizing the body then we do the work we were set up to do so what this says is one sentence and I will just read it one sentence hereby that the senate hereby suspend Senator Norman H. McAllister from exercising any of the powers of his office as a member of the senate until all criminal proceedings currently pending against him have been dismissed now my questions to go back to secretary bloomers presentation my questions were first do we have the power to do this it seemed that yes we did my belief is if we have the power to do it Senator Florey's question about constituents do they have a challenge to our suspension if we have the power to do it then I believe that that question is answered you'll notice here also that it says from exercising any of the powers of his office in California they were worried about a suspended senator being paid for doing their suspension they determined that constitution they could not stop senators pay and so they put in a parallel piece of legislation to change that constitutional provision to allow for unpaid suspension but as you know changing the constitution in any state is an extremely long arduous process so for the sake of simplicity I have not introduced parallel wording to try to change that provision so the upshot here is that were this committee to pass this language were the senate to concur with that Senator McAllister would be suspended pending the charges against him being dismissed and he would continue to be paid during that time he would not be allowed expenses because he would not be acting in his capacity as a senator during that time now very briefly let me just speak to the reason why I think this is crucial that the senate act on this I won't get into the substance of affidavits that have come out or any of that I would like to limit what I say to the level of the charges themselves so it is not in dispute that senator McAllister has been charged with multiple counts of felony sexual assault it is also not in dispute that one of those alleged victims served as his state house intern that being the case it seems to me that the senate is compelled to act and for several reasons first we stand in local parenthesis to the classes of pages that come through our doors every session we have multiple classes of pages I believe they are eighth grade pages we also have a series of state house staff who are by definition in a subsidiary deferential rule to senate the third reason is in our permanent sexual harassment one of the things the senate declared when we adopted those is that above all else we determined to maintain a workplace free from anxiety or fear with regard to sexual harassment or misconduct it is my belief that having a senator sit and vote and receive that deferential treatment from people in a power physician beneath them with those felony sexual assault charges pending I think that that is ignoring the dictates of its own permanent rules on sexual harassment so with that said the intention here was to have this be brief, short and effective and I will leave it at that Any response? Any questions? I understand the intent I guess maybe did you find that there were a contrary view that said that a suspension would be treated similar to expulsion I've had Ludge Council do some research on this too and yeah anytime you have two attorneys or three attorneys you're going to get two or three different rules or different opinions but the memo I got indicated that this may be a suspension may be very similar to expulsion requiring notice due process hearing on the proposed suspension an opportunity to be present that there had to be grounds for it if I could answer my advice seeking on this was entirely from the senate secretary so we had long detailed conversations involving multiple sources and his conversations with California and I will just stress again I was persuaded that expulsion with the parallel proceedings you're talking about to the criminal case was disrupted so the reason I pursued this is because the advice from the senate secretary was very clear that we didn't need such hearings and therefore that danger of stepping somehow inadvertently into the criminal case was not present with this resolution then maybe John we could hear from Ludge Council to see if they believe that we are walking down a similar path with a suspension that this might lead us to the same roadblocks that we considered in the expulsion because that's the information I had from Ludge Council if you want I'm more than happy to get Luke or Betsy in which other one who would you like to have worked on it as did John and I don't find it at all surprising that we have different views I didn't work on the memo no you didn't work on the memo so Mr. Chair do you wish us to yes I would if the senator has a question then I certainly would like it to be answered and I apologize to the senators that this is a longer than year meeting however I think this is extremely important and I do not like to cut corners in any way for any of the parties involved I guess all I would ask there's been talk that we're doing this suspension to a blend some of the potential pitfalls that we might face in an expulsion and I'm just asking your opinion from your research whether we might be walking into the same series of pitfalls and just to be fair to both of you all sitting there do you understand I think Senator Bloor when I was asking originally because I have spoken obviously with the prosecutor who had mentioned that there was a concern if we did anything and that's what that was based on so if you have that clear then if you can answer that's great we'll try to once again have a great afternoon with Marlan and let me preface my response by saying that this puts us in a little bit of an awkward situation we have tremendous respect for John Bloomer who's the Secretary of the Senate and this is his area of expertise but if we are asked to opine on a matter by one of you who's our clients we do that I think that John has given a lot of great information with almost everything he said and as someone pointed out there's no clear guidance so this is an issue where smart well-meaning people might disagree smart well-meaning attorneys might disagree so it doesn't mean that he's right or wrong or wrong or he's for the contract Betsy and Raskol also spoke to California and we don't dispute anything that John said that is precedent there's no court case that tells you what to do that's absolutely correct when we were looking at this and in our conversations with individuals who've asked for our opinion we approached it slightly differently and we looked at there's two options that have been put on the table one is expulsion and one is suspension and so in those conversations we looked at what is the effect of either action what are the grounds for the action and as a result would due process to some extent be required in either action now if you start with expulsion I realize that's not on the table but if you start with expulsion in expulsion the senator is banned from carrying out his or her duties and expelled from the body that is the effect of the action and it would be permanent and I think everyone agrees that that is probably not appropriate or the impact upon the body the media circus or some other negative impact upon the rest of the body's ability to perform their duties and I think everyone agrees that in the context of expulsion some due process is required such as notice and an opportunity to be heard so if you turn out to suspension what is the effect of this action is very similar the senator is barred from carrying out his or her duties now it may be temporary that's a very good point but it could be two months or it could be the whole session and so it is possible that the effect of this action is very very similar that the senator is barred from carrying out his or her duties for some period of time and so on what are the grounds for suspension they are identical it could be the nature of the criminal charges which I think everyone agrees is not appropriate or the impact upon the body the exact same two grounds as under expulsion and do we believe some form of due process may be required yes we do I don't know exactly what that due process would be it doesn't have to be all the due process of a trial perhaps it could include some sort of notice what is the basis to proceed and some opportunity to be heard so we think there is a good argument that some form of due process may be required if I could just speak to that and I don't preside over the senate and I don't dictate what the senate does it was my feeling that if this committee passed this forward that the senate secretary from our discussions that senator McAllister would be given notice that a suspension hearing or a suspension motion was pending on the floor and that if he was sitting that day he would be allowed as any other senator to speak to it do I have that correct yes the short answer is I believe that there are some minimal amounts of due process you have to do I agree that if it's a permanent suspension then you're to an expulsion and so I just think that if you're proceeding with the suspension the sooner you provide a copy of the resolution to the senator the sooner you let the senator know the process that will be followed like it's going to be introduced on Tuesday put on the calendar for action the next day the ability for that senator to come in and be on the floor and plead their case for why they shouldn't be suspended begins to meet some of those minimal requirements I think that I look at the due process and this is what's really fair and what's really whether everybody agrees or doesn't agree I think what's minimally required to be fair is to have the senator have a chance to plead complete his case and then and I think that I'm pretty comfortable in that when I tell you that if you were going to suspend them for a day I don't think you need any more than that and so that's why I look at it potentially sort of similar but a little different I mean it's where you get and how much due process you need or fairness you need to include and the way that this is currently worded with at least two months sort of spring there's no definitive answer on this but I think that if you give him notice give him a right to come in you've at least done enough that a court is going to give you some discretion I can't give you that with a black or white 100% guarantee and that is the practice of law nowadays in the 20th century look can I ask substantially yes there is one other issue that I think suspension puts on the table that's different than expulsion and that's the potential argument that could be raised that the constituents are being denied their equal representation and of course we never know if anyone would go to court and there is an issue called the political question doctrine that courts are very reluctant to intrude on the legislative sphere so there's many issues you've talked about today there's many things you could do that courts will not educate however the exception to that doctrine is if there is a constitutional issue and it's arguable that there is a constitutional issue raised here because those constituents will not have equal representation it could be for a short period of time or it could be a little longer but they are denied equal representation during that period so there is a constitutional aspect to that claim and if someone were to go to court perhaps the courts might therefore adjudicate that claim thank you is there any way to deal with that issue if there is a constitutional issue out there which I think there is in that case if there is no legitimate constitutional issue it probably will be a factor as far as the only replacement now would come if the is there a cure to the defect that might be created in the absence of a senator I do not believe the government could appoint a replacement or you could appoint a replacement if an individual is suspended I am not sure about that I would see anyone else but I do not know about that there is two words of using the word defect one of the defects would be and the governor is the only one who can appoint and there has to be a vacancy and a suspension is not a vacancy and similarly there is no recall the other definition of defect is because there is not a senator on the floor does that make a boat defective? No in my opinion when the senator is absent not on the floor you still have a certain quorum you have to work out a 29 so there is two potential uses of that term in terms of boat there is the issue on potentially the constitutional using that further is there a definition of an exact representation? yes you know what I am saying? that there must be two as opposed to one? no or the fact is what is the representation is representation guaranteed that that person is available to the boat in a current section by any as have been discussed I imagine it is this is a little different so I don't know about that but in this case you are barring some of the boat having any opportunity to so I can't perform their duties it is a little different but I guess my question is the voting itself is that the crux of representation as defined in the constitution? I think it is thinking about it right now we know from the constitution that we have to have equal representation we are reinforcing a case law that says that all citizens have an equal right to vote for legislators what we don't have is a case law saying what happens after they are voted into office and I think it is because we don't have a case law on legislative suspensions but I can't think of any language in our constitution that discusses voting right now alright Joe given our presentations there are two things in front of us right now before we give our opinions I don't have any questions okay alright thank you sorry to put you guys the pickle there and I think Senator Bloomer understands and recognizes their current situation so John I would just like to say on that both the Ledge Council and the Secretary Bloomer worked on this from the same angle from different angles and it isn't at all surprising that we have slightly different views because it's unchartered territory and also just for the record and I think all of us here know is that they both Betsy and I have been working on this since the summer so what do you think really ought to think of yes so at this time Norm I'm going to give you an opportunity if you would like to come up and sit down again I must urge you and to I think I spoke with you last time when we talked about potential when you said that you might want to discuss or talk to me I thought you should definitely run this find your council and I think today I just want to make sure that you do not touch upon anything beyond your case and if you start to get into that area I'm going to stop you okay well thank you John for the time this has been a horrendous thing on me personally through the year I never intended to have this kind of a throw down with anybody as you know I have said that I am not guilty of any of the charges and I'm standing by that so let's go on to this I look at this proposal by Senator as the same thing as expulsion it's different wording it does the same thing and it doesn't allow me to represent the people who elected me so let me tell you that this summer has been one of the worst summers other than losing my wife that I've ever gone through I have had a lot of support from my constituents my neighbors, family all that in fact there is why I haven't quit because they've been pushing me not to I have had constituents tell me that they will bring a lawsuit if I'm not allowed to represent them and if that's necessary I would prefer it wasn't necessary I have not in my knowledge broken any lot rules of the senate ethics or otherwise and I have not not copied I mean I took my constitutional loathe extremely serious I've taken it for seven years, seven times and I have taken an extremely serious and I've done nothing to try to I tried staying within that whenever any discussions came up so to have this happening at this level by my colleagues is quite disturbing I don't believe any of my actions have ever shown that I have never been a threat to anybody and I've been in this building for 13 years so I don't know what the resolution is to finish what you will have that will be up to you I have not wanted to be in the limelight I'm a person that likes cameras for my performance and I'm finding myself in a spot where I really am not comfortable and would rather not do it but this whole proceedings that have been brought on to me has financially ruined me it's been very emotionally hard and it's only everything that I have ever done in my adult life I have been by some misquoted also been bullied threatened by some of my colleagues and we do have laws against that but it's not going to pertain in this case so I'm saying I should be afforded the same thing any other citizen in Vermont or in the United States and that's presumption that innocence and temper would guilty I have not accused of I've got a daughter and four granddaughters that I think the world though that is not something that would be acceptable with any of them so moving forward I understand you feel you have to do something but it's kind of like I see it as when you've got somebody down on their knees to kick them in the head and that's where I look at this next one okay Peg, would you like to start do you have a piece of crap do I have to put them on? no I mean would you like to make comment for me? now I'd just like to vote would you like to take a break? let's vote Joe I'm going to start by saying circumstances that Senator Callister is in and I know this proceeding is not easy and as he knows I have taken a position from the get go that he should have resigned and let the court system play out and he's having chosen not to do that I'm going to take a position where I felt for my responsibility that action of some kind had to be taken I've heard a whole lot of conflation here between criminal guilt or innocence versus whether the Senate has a responsibility and the authority to act I would caution anyone to understand that the Senate has done everything it can to avoid having any impact whatsoever on the criminal proceeding and I don't want my words to be taken as having any kind of reference to that at all except to note that they exist now it seems to me we have a situation where from his words that I've understood have given a difficult situation for us that we have to react to in some form and the options are four one is to do nothing and I don't find that acceptable another is to expel in my eyes that would provide the citizens of Franklin County and in fact my caucus a full vote if he were replaced I understand we don't have the votes for that so I'm down to the two options that are now in front of us Senator Florey, Senator Bruce I want to commend you both for working overtime trying to figure out solutions here that would make the most sense and be the least burdensome to anybody here Senator Florey I'm going to address our resolution first the point was raised earlier about what this would technically do in the long term and I'll use this example if I was to stand up here now and pull Senator Baruth out of his chair and pummel him senseless on the floor and then be charged tomorrow with a crime and charge was pending for aggravated assault this resolution as I understand it would freeze the Senate's ability to police itself at least freeze it and turn that over to the court system to make a determination which would be taken into account by us if we reconvene that committee after as I read this language an appeal process was done if there was no entry of judgment pending appeal I find that very troubling I do not wish to cede the Senate's responsibilities and authority over to the court system I think it is incumbent upon us as senators to police ourselves and we have not only the authority to do that but the responsibility to do that even in the most uncomfortable circumstances I'll turn to Senator Baruth's resolution I'm not 100% satisfied with it because it does leave us in a situation where we have one vote less than we should and I'm speaking about my caucus the Senate also has one vote less than it should and the concern that has been raised about potential intervention by the court system I think is a very valid I understand what we do has the potential for triggering a court response I would like to avoid that at all costs but I have no control over whether that happens or not and I feel as if I am forced to vote for one of these two resolutions it was brought up for discussion before that we could technically pass both of these my observation of that is it would leave us looking like a circular firing squad presenting these two things to the Senate because they are vehicles that are heading in completely the opposite direction and if you pass them both the Senate is in no better position than we are today and we're the ones charged with having to come up with a solution to present to the Senate so my default position if you will is to go along with Senator Baruch's resolution I think if there is going to be a court challenge whether it be on this resolution or any other that the trick to minimizing your exposure is to minimize the design of what it is that the Senator would be charged with that may be an issue we have to play out down the road if we pass this resolution there is always the possibility that it will become something else that we have to deal with at a later time and it is obvious from the word language resolution that we will anyway and when that happens it will again be incumbent upon us to try to avoid a triggering device as the court system becomes involved so to wrap it up I'm going to vote in favor of Senator Baruch's resolution and against Senator Florez's resolution but I want to thank you both again for taking the time to work over time to try to resolve this I especially want to thank John Bloomer, Luke and Betsy Ann I know that with respect to all three of you on this issue I know how hard you have been working and that is very much appreciated we are all in uncharted waters doing the best we can under circumstances that are not of our own agreement so thank you that's where I'm planning to vote Bill? So I thank Senator Benning for his comments to speak to one piece of what Senator McAllister said one of the reasons why suspension became an attractive option for me is that it does not prejudge the issue or the innocence or guilt of the person suspended in American life and Vermont life you typically in many professions but especially professions where people are entrusted with power over others when charges are preferred criminal charges often those people are suspended so I'm thinking here of policemen who are involved in shootings that are questioned or teachers who are accused of improper conduct with their students they are moved out of the classroom moved off the beat while those charges are pending it's not intended to prejudge the case but it does say that in the tension between protecting public safety or in this case the safety of the chamber and the integrity of the chamber we will err on the side of protecting those who have been entrusted to us and again I would say Page, Ledge Council, JFO all of the people in the building who are in extremely deferential positions to senators now if you are not a senator if you're not a house member you don't see this as often as we do but when we move through the building people are helping us staffing us and it's a huge responsibility if there's a question a substantial question a felony question about whether that power has been abused and abused with someone in the role of a state house I believe absolutely the course of action is to suspend that person pending the outcome now the only other thing I'll say is that we have two resolutions here I think Senator the rumor is correct technically we could pass both technically we could work out all sorts of calisthenics and gymnastics on the floor procedurally to make the two somehow both take effect but they are fatally at odds with one another and I would hope no one can miss that distinction one is saying that the senate should be prevented from acting in this particular case among others the other is not just saying that the senate can act but that we must act and so I will be voting to approve obviously the resolution I put forward but with respect for my colleague Senator Flory who is just let me say a phenomenal senator I will be voting against her resolution you know my possessions I guess I'm just going to point out two things that were just said by the two previous speakers talking about employees in a school suspended he is absolutely correct we do that in police departments in school because they are employees we have that ability for employees elected officials have a different different responsibilities yeah or had held to perhaps a higher standard but there is a real difference in suspending someone who you hire versus suspending someone who the voters elected it's number one number two to Senator Benning who indicated that my resolution would stop us for taking action if he pounded Senator Barouf I assume he means out of our presence and he's absolutely right because I would want to make sure it wasn't exactly the opposite that Senator Barouf handed Senator Benning and I'd want the court to figure that out I still feel that a suspension carries some due process problems but particularly denies Franklin County part of their constitutional right I think for me to vote to do that I'm knowingly breaking my oath of office to not do anything that affects their constitutional right and for me the presumption of innocence for anyone is so strong should be so strong that I don't think we should do it my resolution I hope we are treating it and I should make sure that it does in fact say felony not just crimes I have amended the one yes thank you I support that because I think it's time we set up a process before we ever ever ever have to go through a summer and fall life all been through I've given this a lot of thought over the summer I am not going to support either resolution and I will give you a short reason to vote I think one of them the committee process from Senator Florey bothers me it still assumes that the person is guilty I think it's going to come up in February it's a short time away I think we probably should wait and find out either guilt or innocence in the case the only thing that I know a lot about this case what I've read and impressed I feel I am not qualified to make a decision whether the senator is guilty or innocent just what I've read the case the other suspension means somewhat of guilt and I don't want to leave here today assuming that I know that the person is guilty or innocent at this time I think they both deserve certainly some discussion but at this point I don't feel qualified to make that decision knowing that the voters of Franklin County elected this person it's not like I think Senator Florey stated it's not like an employee this person was elected by the constituents back in the county and I just don't want to be the one that changes the court case at all I would be much more comfortable come February if that's when the case is coming up in a very short few weeks telling us the outcome so at this time I am not prepared to vote for either one thank you as a lawyer I guess I'm looking at this through the eyes of Lady Justice while I can say that I would fight until my breath is taken to defend one's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty I have to look at this from the senate and from the institution here in the legislature and my concern is that this issue has caused a tremendous uproar within not only the legislative community but also within the state it concerns me that when we return if you're seated under this cloud that is there which none of us can sit there and try to make it no matter what way we say it from the defense side or the other side or accusatory side it's there at this current time so what happens with that cloud there are people here there are people that feel very very strongly that you should not see it sit in the senate seat again there are those, as you mentioned earlier that believe you have a right to be there you should be there you have that right to be sitting there until a court finds you guilty of crimes but as I said earlier I think we we sometimes mix up as senator begs and conflate the issues of the criminal action versus this administrative action and while there is definitely that presumption of innocence and you should not give up anything any right if you are found guilty however while sitting in the senate for sitting in the senate it is a privilege for all 30 of us it's a privilege to sit in the entire legislative body for the other 150 in the house and I believe that the institution this legislative institution that we have is so important not just to us who sit here but also to every man, woman and especially kids, children that they see it as something that is special and untainted and regardless of whatever the outcome is of this I think we all can agree that there has been that air of something amiss here and so it's my belief that we should not be faced and I don't think you should be faced also I want to touch on that for a second is with what may occur or the the atmosphere that might involve this legislative body, this state house if you do if you are seated while the trial is pending I don't think it's going to be healthy for anyone that's not just the senate or not just the house it's the entire legislative body but as I've said I'm also concerned about what it would be like the atmosphere that you would be subjected to as well and I just can't help to think that with pressures that are brought to bear on people sometimes they can end up with terrible, terrible consequences ones that were not ever anticipated and ones that could have people acting in ways that they would not act before and I see this also for potential of people as I said acting in ways they wouldn't in a very ugly fashion and I just feel that for the sake of the legislative body and for all of the people that are concerned right now that I would have to support the suspension resolution and I cannot support your respect because I believe it does create some unintended consequences I guess my my biggest, greatest hope is that whenever is to occur does so quickly and so that people can know and have some certainty and some understanding of what the next step will be so John you're going to do official I'm keeping track but I will do it separately but my understanding is the process is we want to do Senator Florey's first yes Senator Benning Senator Baruch Senator Mazza Senator Florey Senator Campbell Senator Baruch's motion for suspension of the proposed resolution Senator Benning Senator Baruch Senator Mazza Senator Florey Senator Campbell yes I have the Baruch's motion as a committee resolution 3-2 and at this point I have the Florey proposal resolution not a committee resolution 1-4 I would ask that we now as far as what the procedure is from here John so we have it clear from your vantage point there are two components Mr. Chair and Senator one of them is my recommendation to you would be to have the resolution sort of put in format as soon as possible although Senator McAllister is here today I believe that you should I would ask that you send him a copy directly as soon as possible with someone with a procedure maybe and that's sort of the second issue there are three things that can be done with a resolution they can be read and adopted they can be referred to a committee and they can be read the first time placed on the calendar for action the next day we've been researching this one more recently generally the preferred method I'll give you a sort of example I believe is to read it on the first day of the session have it introduced and take action the following day and that's really a fairness to process issue but it's also I think you may if you were wanting to be as safe as possible once again getting back to sort of the challenging you should probably do a rule suspension but under all the circumstances my recommendation to you would be to follow sort of the standard path which would be to have it read the first day placed on the calendar for action the next day and that would be what I would include in a letter to Senator McAllister which would be the intent to introduce on Tuesday have it up for action on Wednesday for the Senators current schedule my understanding is we have Tuesday and then Wednesday would be a one o'clock session unless you decide to change that something different but our standard on that Wednesday would be one o'clock so I would ask on behalf of the committee that the letter be presented sent to Senator McAllister and make sure that it includes all your colloquy that you just had and that Senator McAllister if he has any questions be provided with the opportunity to contact you or much counsel to ask for any clarity John can I just ask you a question should Senator McAllister appear and then to argue from the floor is he subject to the tension on interrogation? I would think there are some limited exceptions my once again there's everything that's different what can be done or not be done my preferred would be the proposal of the resolution can be interrogated it's required by our rules and so someone will have to report on behalf of the rules committee I'm assuming at this point that's going to Senator Bruth but we just need to know before we actually have that Wednesday generally speaking Senators are entitled to speak subject to our rules Senator McAllister it would be my first inclination to say no because he's not the presenter and I don't think there could be lots of potential technical violations of other rules and so the best process would be know that he should not be interrogated Are we sending this document that he's getting copying everyone else in the Senate? Because if we are and I would suggest that we do that that statement would be included that should Senator McAllister choose to speak that he is not subject to the recommendation and that would or in a bigger job that's also the recommendation of the rules committee as long as everybody else agrees with that but I think that that would be the recommendation that he is not subject to any interrogation I will send it to all Senators I will probably use email except for the couple Senators but I will send it to them by everyone else Okay, if there's any other further business saying none, I don't declare this meeting closed