The Joint Rules Committee adopted amendments to Joint Rule 22-1 to establish clearer procedures for receiving, screening and investigating ethics complaints against members of the House and Senate.

The committee heard that the amendments — developed by a Management Council subcommittee and refined through public meetings in 2023 — add legislative findings, define "legislative misconduct," require complaints to be written and signed and based on unique personal knowledge, and create a multistep review process capped by a special investigative committee if probable cause is found.

Matt Obrecht of the Legislative Service Office walked the committee through the changes, explaining that the rule defines legislative misconduct to include violations of Article III of the Wyoming Constitution, the Ethics and Disclosure Act, state conflict-of-interest statutes, violence or disorderly conduct while performing legislative duties, bribery, violation of chamber ethical rules, or any conduct constituting a felony.

Obrecht described procedural safeguards in the amended rule: complaints must state detailed facts, attach supporting documentation, and may be summarily dismissed by the presiding officer after consultation with majority and minority floor leaders if the complaint appears frivolous or fails to allege conduct that would constitute legislative misconduct when the allegations are taken as true. "All records, findings, and proceedings, including the filing of the initial complaint, shall be considered confidential information," Obrecht said, but the rule requires that the complaint be available for public inspection after a dismissal, referral for formal investigation, or other final dispositive action.

Under the amended rule, if a complaint survives summary dismissal it is forwarded to a Management Council subcommittee composed of members from the body of the respondent. That subcommittee determines whether probable cause exists using a standard that asks whether a reasonably prudent person informed of legislative procedure would believe misconduct occurred. If probable cause is found, the subcommittee may either recommend remedial action to the presiding officer (in circumstances where a formal public investigation would not serve the interests of justice or the House) or refer the matter for formal investigation by a special investigative committee. The investigative committee is quasi-judicial: members can be sworn, witnesses called, evidence presented and counsel retained; it makes recommendations to the full body and can recommend censure or, by two-thirds vote, removal.

Committee members asked whether the "unique personal knowledge" requirement would preclude complaints based on evidence later discovered (for example, video of an incident). Obrecht said that the rule does not bar such complaints if the complainant can show they possessed unique or personal knowledge relevant to the allegations once they became aware of it.

Public comment came from Marguerite Herman of Lee Goldman Voters, who praised the work and asked for clearer public guidance on what rises to the level of "misconduct" and whether conduct outside of session could be subject to complaint; a committee member replied that the working group had discussed those boundaries and the rule enumerates categories of misconduct but leaves non-covered matters to the electorate.

The committee moved to adopt the amended Joint Rule 22-1; the motion carried by voice vote.