HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoc Select Committee

Nashville, Tennessee

July 13, 2016

MEMORANDUM

TO: Honorable Beth Harwell, Speaker of the House of Representatives
FROM: Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoc Select Committee
SUBJECT: Final Report

On February 4, 2016, the Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoc Select Committee was
appointed to determine whether allegations concerning Representative Jeremy
Durham constitute disorderly behavior and whether such behavior or other
circumstances justify expulsion from the House of Representatives. On February 8,
2016, the Committee designated the Attorney General and Reporter to serve as
legal counsel to the Committee for the purpose of investigating the allegations of
disorderly and inappropriate behavior and misconduct by Representative Durham.
The Committee requested the Attorney General to conduct a full, fair, and thorough
investigation and, upon conclusion, prepare a report for the Committee.

On April 6, 2016, the Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoc Select Committee issued a
Status Report and Interim Recommendations. This report was issued upon receipt
of a letter from the Attorney General dated April 5, 2016, which stated that ased
upon the information gathered [in the investigation] thus far, Representative
Durham?s alleged behavior may pose a continuing risk to unsuspecting women who
are employed by or interact with the Legislature." The Committee recommended
certain measures to ensure the alleged conduct would not continue while allowing
Representative Durham to maintain representation of his constituents.

On April 22, 2016, the 109th General Assembly adjourned sine die. The
investigation of the Ad Hoc Select Committee continued in accordance with Tenn.
Code Ann. 3-4-102 and Senate Joint Resolution 844.

Representative Durham declined the opportunity to discuss the allegations
with the Attorney General. We regret that he did not take this opportunity.

On July 8, 2016, the Attorney General issued a final report to the committee.
The report is a confidential attorney client communication. The Committee does
not take the seriousness of its task. When contemplating releasing this
report, the Committee struggled with keeping the privacy of the witnesses
preserved. It is the Committee?s sincere desire that the individuals are not .re-
victimized by the release of this report. With the exception of the attachments to
thevreport and certain identifying information that has been redacted, the
Committee waives confidentiality of this report and only this report.1 The
Committee does not waive any other privilege or con?dentiality as to any
information, communications, or materials that are privileged, protected, andlor
confidential.

The conduct of Representative Durham as described in the report of the
Attorney General is inappropriate and far from what is expectedof a member of the
Tennessee House of Representatives. In our opinion, Representative Durham?s
conduct constitutes disorderly behavior. Based upon the conduct described in the
report, the interim recommendations should be continued atleast through
November 8, 2016.

Article II, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution provides:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds,
expel a member, but not a second time for the same offence; and shall have
all other powers necessary for a branch of the Legislature of a free State.

The 109th General Assembly has adjourned sine die and the terms of its members
end on November 8, 2016. While a special session of the 109?;h General Assembly is
possible, even if a special session was called, an expulsion based upon
Representative Durham's conduct as described in this report would continue only
until the conclusion of the 109til General Assembly in November 2016. If re-elected,
he could not be expelled again for the same offense. As with each representative,
we face our constituents every two years for the right and privilege to represent
them in the Tennessee House of Representatives. While the conduct described in
this report justifies expulsion, it is ultimately the voters of the 651311 Representative
District who will decide who best represents their principles and values in
Nashville. We leave it for them to decide their representation. -

 

1 The report attachments consist of copies of electronic communications provided by the interviewed
witnesses which may contain identifying information. The relevant portions of those
communications appear in the body of the report.

The Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoe Select Committee would like to thank the
Office of the Tennessee Attorney General Reporter for its integrity and
professionalism throughout the course of this investigation.

Upon issuance of this report, the Article II, Section 12 Ad Hoc Select
Committee is dissolved.

 

 

 

litep. Raumesh Akbari Rep. Andrew Farmer
Ape 
thi Steve McDaniel, Chair Rep. Billy Spivey

 

FINAL REPORT OF THE
ARTICLE II, 12 AD HOC SELECT COMMITTEE
FOR THE TENNESSEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 13,. 2016

 

REPORT OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY OFFICE
TO THE ARTICLE II, 12 AD HOC SELECT COMMITTEE
FOR THE TENNESSEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 8, 2016 I

HERBERT H. SLATERY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORTER

 

REPORT OF THE TENNESSEE ATTORNEY OFFICE
To THE ARTICLE 11, 12 AD HOC SELECT COMMITTEE
FOR THE TENNESSEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 8, 2016 

 

I.
OVERVIEW OF INVESTIGATION AND SUMNIARY OF FINDINGS

This report is provided in accordance with the February 8, 20-16 resolution adopted by the
Article 11, 12 Ad Hoc Select Committee (?Committee?) designating the Of?ce of the Tennessee
Attorney General (?the Of?ce?) as counsel and investigator for the purpose of ?a full, fair, and
thorough investigation of the allegations of disorderly and inappropriate behavior and misconduct
by Representative Jeremy Durham.? To comply with the Committee?s request, the Office
dedicated three attorneys, an investigator, and other staff, who spent over four months and
hundreds of hours gathering the information referenced in the Detailed Findings in Section and 
set out in the individual accounts of Rep. Durham?s conduct in Sections VI and VII. Over the
course of the investigation, the Office made or received in excess of 180 phone calls 'to locate
witnesses and conducted 78 interviews. This process was made more dif?cult by the fact that most
of those interviewed were hesitant to speak to our Of?ce, due to concerns about retaliation and the
loss of personal and professional reputations from public exposure, and did so only after being told
their identities would be kept con?dential to the extent possible. Some witnesses requested the
interviews be conducted away ?orn downtown Nashville or after hours to mitigate risk of public
eXposure. Additionally, the Of?ce obtained electronic data; requested, Obtained, and served
subpoenas duces tecum for phone records; compiled Witness interview summaries; analyzed
information; attended numerOus meetings related to the investigation; and performed numerous
other activities necessary for a thorough investigation. 

Information gathered during the investigation reveals a pattern of conduct by Rep. Durham
toward current and former female legislative staff, interns, lobbyists, and others with whom he had
contact as a legislator that was sexual in nature and was not related to the business of the House.
Rep. Durham?s pattern of behavior with women started in his ?rst year as a representative and
continued through the 2015?16 Session of the 109th General His access to, interaction
with, and behavior toward these women occurred because he was an elected representative and
legislative leader.

Information from the women who related incidents involving Rep. Durham indicates: 
he occupied a superior position of power to the women he approached; (2) he obtained personal
contact information from the women in his capacity as a legislator or under the guise of legislative
business or another legitimate reason; (3) he initiated contact about non-legislative matters and
attempted to meet the women alone; (4) he often used alcohol in his interaction with the women;
and (5) he made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature or engaged in inappropriate physical
contact with some women.

This pattern is derived from Rep. Durham?s interactions with 22 women: Thirteen
incidents occurred between November 2012 and the end of 2014, eight occurred in 2015, and one
incident occurred in 2016. The women in this group stated that Rep. Durham's behavior was out
of the ordinary fora legislator and went beyond their usual interactions with other legislators. Rep.
Durham?s conduct ranged from what some of the women viewed as ??shing,? such as invitations
for drinks with him alone, ?irting, and similar conduct,? to sexually suggestive comments, such
as those to lobbyists Jane Doc #30 that he expected something in return for supporting her bill,
Jane Doe #17 (?there?s a thousand places I?d rather meet you than my of?ce?), and Jane Doc #63
(?What about thins-sun, . . My roommate?s gone and I?ll be super bored?), to attempted or actual 
touching of a sexual nature, such as that reported by intern Jane Doe #44 (attempted kiss, 2015),
legislative staff member Jane Doc #24 (pulled her close while talking; kissed her, 2013), lobbyist
Jane Doc #17 (pressed, her breasts in a full frontal hug with an sound, 2015), and
lobbyist Jane Doe #2 (rubbed her thigh, 2014). Further, in 2014-, Rep. Durham served alcohol to
a female college student who was under 21 years old in his State legislative of?ce, followed by
sexual intercourse. The reported behavior has continued throughout Rep. Durham?s tenure in the
House, despite warnings from legislative staff member John Doe #15 in 2013 and a discussion
with the Director of Legislative Administration on November 2, 2015, regarding rumors of his
inappropriate behavior toward women. The investigation shows little if any effect of such
discussions on Rep. Durham?s behavior. Most recently, Rep. Durham made comments to lobbyist 
Jane Doc #52 about her body in January 2016 that made her uncomfortable, despite Rep. Durham 
having met with the Director of Legislative Administration just two months prior. However, no
incidents involving Rep. Durham were reported to have occurred after the Committee was
appointed and this investigation began in early February 2016.

Representative Durham?s behavior created an environment that made a number of the --
women uncomfortable interacting with him in the workplace. Many of those who centinue to
work for or with the Legislature avoid or refuse to be alone with Rep. Durham, a situation which
adversely affects their ability to perform. their jobs in the same manner as their male counterparts.
With few exceptions, the women who related incidents felt they could not report Rep. Durham?s
behavior because nothing would be done and they did not want to lose their jobs or be considered
?untrustworthy? by employers, clients, or other legislators. Most were fearful and extremely
anxious about having their identities revealed publicly. 

Other information obtained during the investigation constituted suf?cient credible
evidence to warrant an investigation by the appropriate State authority into whether Rep. Durham
violated campaign ?nance laws while in office. The Of?ce referred the matter to the Tennessee
Registry of Election Finance for review and any appropriate action.

Additionally, the Office requested an interview With. Rep. Durham, through his counsel, to
give him an opportunity to answer questions concerning the allegations of inappropriate conduct
outlined in the Office?s April 6, 2.016. interim report to the Committee and information gathered
throughout the investigation. Rep. Durham declined the request to be interviewed. He was asked
to provide names of any witnesses the Office should interview but did not submit any names.

II.
BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2016, he Tennessean published an article claiming that two women who
worked at Legislative Plaza provided the newspaper with copies of what they considered
inappropriate text messages they received ?om Rep. Durham, including requests for pictures.1
Some of the texts were received late at night, and the paper veri?ed that the text messages were 
sent ?om Rep. Durham?s cell phone number. A third woman cited in the article described text
messages Rep. Durham sent to her, but it was unclear when she received the texts. All of the
women who spoke to The Tennessean did so only on the condition of anonymity for fear that Rep.
Durham would retaliate against them.

The Tennessean article came on the heels of other adverse articles about Rep. Durham in
previous months. In early January 2016, The Tennessean investigation revealed the Director of
Legislative Administration, upon Speaker Beth Harwell?s request, previously spoke to Rep.
Durham regarding ?feedback? about his behavior ?from various sources? as early as 'fall 2015.2
House leadership reportedly was aware that two. women during 2015 and another woman in early
January 2016 contacted lawmakers regarding Rep. Durham?s behavior? Speaker Harwell and
State Republican Party Chairman Ryan Haynes subsequently called on Rep. Durham to resign
?ern the Legislature, as did Governor Haslarn.4 Amid pressure from Republican leadership and
the press, Rep. Durham resigned as Majority Party Whip and as a member of the Republican
Caucus but refused to resign his legislative position.5 He told the Caucus that he wanted to do
things right and talk to his Wife and his doctor? 

On February 4, 2016, Speaker Harwell announced the appointment of an Article 11, 12
Ad Hoc Select Committee (?the Committee?) to investigate allegations of Rep. Durham?s

 

1 Dave Boucher and Jill Cowan, Tennessean investigation ?nals inappropriate text messages, The Tennessean, Jan.
24, 2016. -

2 Dave Boucher, Jill Cowan, and Stacey Barchenger, With Jeremy Durham, ambition, anger collide, The Tennessean,
Jan. 9, 2016; Frank Daniels Decisive action needed on Jeremy Durham, The Tennessean, Jan. 9, 2016; Dave
Boucher, GOP lawmaker returns Cuban cigars from Jeremy Durham, The Tennessean, Jan. 8, 2016.

3 Dave Boucher, Woman approached McCormick about Durham texts in summer, The Tennessean, Ian. 29, 2016;
- Dave Boucher, Jill and Joel Ebert, GOP leaders knew Durham allegations for months, The Tennessean, Jan.
28, 2016; Dave Bencher and Jill Cowan, Tennessean investigation ?nds inappropriate text messages, The Tennessean,
Jan. 24, 2016.

oel Ebert and Dave Boueher, op Tennessee Republicans: Durham should resign ?om storehouse, The Tennessean, 
. an. 25, 2016; Dave Boucher, Haslam: Durham situation ?hard and sad event ?for Tennessee, The Tennessean, Feb.
2, 20-16. 

5 Joel Ebert, Dave Bcueher, and Jill Cowan, Jeremy Durham resigns from GOP caucus, The Tennessean, Jan. 27,
2016; Dave Boucher and Jili Cowan, Jeremy Durban: con?rms resignation as whip, The Tennessean, Jan. 24, 2016.

5 Joel Ebert, Dave Boucher, and Jill Cowan, Jeremy Durham resigns from GOP caucus, The Tennessean, Ian. 27,
2016.

behavior.7 The Speaker appointed Representatives Raurnesh Akbari (D-??District 91), Andrew
Farmer (R?eDistrict 17), and Billy Spivey (R?District 92) as members of the Committee and
Representative Steve McDaniel (R?District 72) as the chairman.8 (Letter from Harwell to
McCord 2/4/16.)



ATTORNEY AUTHORITY
AND SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION.

On February 8, 2016, the Committee adopted a Resolution designating the Of?ce to
?conduct a full, fair, and thorough investigation of the allegations of disorderly and inappropriate
behavior and misconduct by Representative Jeremy Durham? pursuant to its statutory authority in
Tenn. Code Ann. 3-4-101 et seq. (Resolution, Art. 11, 12 Ad Hoe Select Committee, House of
Reps, 109th General Assembly at 2.) The Resolution included, as necessary to the investigation,
the power to issue subpoenas duces teeum and for the attendance of witnesses pursuant to Tenn.
Code Ann. 3?3?108 through -l2.l. Id. at 2-3. The Committee directed the Of?ce to prepare a
written report of its ?ndings at the conclusion of the investigation. Id. at 3. 

IV.
THE INVESTIGATION
Persons Interviewed

Because the identities of the women mentioned in The Tennessean articles were unknown,
the Office began the investigation by interviewing legislators who were mentioned in the articles
as having received information about inappropriate conduct by Rep. Durham. Senior Deputy
Attorney General Leslie Bridges and/or an investigator conducted two initial interviews, and
Assistant Attorneys General Linda D. Kirklen and Scott C. Sutherland jointly interviewed the
remaining witnesses. 9 As other individuals with information were identi?ed during the interviews,
those individuals were contacted by the Of?ce to set up con?dential and discrete interviews, away
from downtown Nashville in some instances. The Tennessean invoked Tennessee?s Shield Law,
Tenn. Code Ann. 24-1-208, and. declined the Office?s request to contact on the-Of?ce?s behalf,
or disclose the identity of, the women who ?rst publicly reported Rep. Durham?s behavior or to
provide the text messages in its possession.

Witness interview process. The Office made or received in excess of 180 phone calls and
conducted 78 interviews. Witnesses included legislators, legislative staff, lobbyists,
interns, and a few individuals formerly associated with the Legislature in some capacity.

 

7 Joel Ebert and Dave Boucher, Harweli committee to lead Jeremy Durham investigation, The Tennessean, Feb. 4,
2016.

3 Id;

9 One interview and several foiiow-up interviews were conducted by just one attorney, due to scheduling con?icts or
the purpose of the interview.

Many of the women interviewed were fear?ii of losing their jobs, retaliation, or of being
perceived as ?untrustworthy? by other legislators for cooperating with the investigation.
To minimize the risk of a breach of con?dentiality, the decision was made not to
electronically record the interviews, which is an accepted interview protocol. General
Kirklen or General Sutherland prepared the draft summary of each interview, which was
then reviewed by the other for accuracy.

At the start of each interview, the attorney conducting the interview explained to the
witness that the Of?ce had been appointed by the Committee to do a fair, and thorough
investigation of allegations against Rep. Durham and that the scope of the investigation
was disorderly conduct, misconduct, and inappropriate conduct by Rep. Durham. The
witnesses received information regarding the con?dentiality of the interview and the
Of?ce?s plans to use pseudonyms in its report to the Committee, as well as instructions to
Call the Of?ce if retaliation by anyone was implied or threatened or occurred. Witnesses
were also asked not to discuss with anyone that they met with the Of?ce, what questions
we asked, or what their answers were, in order to maintain the integrity of the investigation
and witness con?dentiality. Witnesses were not told the source of any specific information

they were asked about that came from another witness.10

Records Reviewed

Electronic records obtained in this investigation consist of screen shots of text messages or
Facebook pages voluntarily provided by nine female witnesses, Rep. Durham?s cell phone records,
for the periods they were available ?'om the providers, data from Rep. Durham?s state~owned and
state-issued Lenovo desktop computer and iPad, and cell phone records of some female witnesses.
Representative Durham declined the O?ice?s request for access to the data contained on his
personal cell phone and information about his personal email and social media accounts.

a The state-owned Lenovo desktop. computer and iPad. A member of the Attorney
General?s information systems division made a copy of the hard drive from the state?owned
Lenovo desktop computer located in Rep. Durham?s legislative of?ce on February ll,
2016, and an investigator obtained Rep. Durham?s state-issued iPad from him at his home
on February 13, 2016. The Of?ce noti?ed Rep. Durham via a hand-delivered letter on

February 12, 2016, that it had obtained a copy of the desktop computer in his of?ce. (Letter
from Att?y Gen. Slatery to Rep. Durham 2/12/16.) On February 22, 2016, the Office hand?
delivered a second letter to Rep. Durham, notifying him that we intended to begin
reviewing data from his state-owned devices on February 29, 2016, and requesting that he
identify ?any data contained on these devices which you assert constitutes attorney-client
privileged communications, private spousal and other family communications, and/or

 

1? Sections VI and VII contain information ?'orn witnesses relevant to Rep. Durham?s conduct under investigation.
To the extent there are inconsistencies in some details between witness accounts, we have included such information.
We recognize some witnesses? accounts may differ in certain details based on the questions asked, subjects covered
in an interview, and individual memories.

private ?nancial and medical information.? (Letter from Att?y Gen. Slatery to Rep.
Durham 2/22/16.) Representative Durham did not respond.

After Rep. Durham retained William L. Harbison as counsel, the Office again sought Rep.
Durham?s cooperation to screen out any information that may be con?dential. (Letters
from Bridges to Harbison 3/8/16, 3/17/16, and 4/20/16.) Rep. Durham?s counsel asserted
a non-speci?c objection on April 26, 2016, stating, ?[T]hese devices contain privileged 
information protected by attorney?client privilege and spousal privilege. . . .Thus, my client
continues to object to your search of these devices.? (Letter from Harbison to Bridges
4/26/ 16.) Despite our request to do so, Rep. Durham never identi?ed any speci?c
information that was privileged.

To thoroughly analyze Rep. Durham?s state-issued devices, the Of?ce contracted with a
third-party, who obtained a forensic image of his state-oivned Lenovo computer?s hard
drive and iPad data On May 19, 2016. A subsequent analysis of these devices found no
information relevant to the ?ndings in this investigation. 

Text messages and private Facebook messages. Information systems staff and an
investigator collected screen shots of text messages and private Facebook messages from
the witnesses? electronic devices by consent. These were noted in an evidence log and
preserved by the investigator.

Rep. Durham?s personal cell phone. The letter hand?delivered to Rep. Durham on
February 12, 2016, also requested that he provide all data, including emails and texts, from
any personal cell phone he used ??om January 2013 to the present. (Letter from Att?y Gen.
Slatery to Rep. Durham 2/ 12/ 16.) This time period waschosen to correspond with the
sessions of the General Assembly in which Rep. Durham participated. A preservation letter
was sent to. b'l' bruary 16, 2016, covering data related to Rep. Durham?s
cell phone number   for the same time period. (Letter from Att?y Gen.
Slate'ry to Wireless 2/16/16.) 

   

On March 4, 2016, the Of?ce met with Rep. Durham?s counsel, who informed the Of?ce
that his ?rm had enlisted forensic analysists at LogicForce Consulting, LLC, to preserve
Rep. Durham?s personal cell phone data. Rep. Durham?s counsel advised the Of?ce that
his current cell phone was obtained Within the past year. Rep. Durham, through counsel,
requested that the Of?ce provide him with search terms for the infermation sought on the
cell phone, which the Office declined to do, because this information could compromise
the integrity of the investigation and con?dentiality of the witnesses. (Letter from Bridges
to Harbison 3/8/16; Letter from Harbison to Bridges 3/14/16; Letter from Bridges to
Harbison 3/17/16.) While Rep. Durham initially agreed to discuss a method for the Office
to obtain the data relevant to this investigation (Letter from Bridges to Harbison 3/8/16),
he did not propose or entertain any alternative means of reviewing the contents. of his cell
phone, and the parties were unable to agree on a method to screen out irrelevant and
privileged material. Representative Durham rejected the Of?ce?s offer to provide
con?dential search terms to LOgicForce Consulting rather than directly to Rep. Durham
and his counsel.

In view of Rep. Durham?s refusal to permit access to his cell phone data, the Office
requested that the Committee issue subpoenas duces tecum to the service providers for the
call log detail and text message log detail and other non-content?based information from
his personal/business cell phone. The Committee issued the subpoenas on April 7 
and May 4,2016 (Verizon). The second subpoena was necessary once?the Office received
the records from and discovered that Rep. Durham?s phone number was transferred
to Verizon on or about September 27, 2013.11 However, Verizon does not retain records
of text messages older than one year. Thus, the records received pursuant to the subpoenas
provide text message log details only for the period January 1 to September 27, 2013
and from May 13, 2015, to May 4, 2016 (Verizon). Phone call logs for both
providers cover the entire period from January 1, 2013, to May 7, 2016. This left a gap of
almost 19 months in the text message logs for Rep. Durham?s cell phone.

Representative Durham?s email and social media accounts. The Of?ce requested from
Rep. Durham and his counsel ?information identifying any and all personal email accounts
and addresses utilized by [Rep Durham]? from the beginning of his ?rst term in January
2013 to present and ?information identifying any and all social media application accounts
including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and. Snapchat? for the same

time period. (Letter from Att?y Gen. Slatery to Rep. Durham 2/ 12/ 16; Letter from Deputy

Att?y Gen. Bridges to Harbison 3/8/ 16.) Rep. Durham?s counsel agreed to discuss our
request with him; however, Rep. Durham refused to provide the requested information to
the Of?ce without being ?suf?ciently informed of the conduct under investigation.?
(Letter from Harbison to Deputy Att?y Gen. Bridges 3/ 14/16.)

Other cell phone records. To ?ll the gaps in Rep. Durham?s cell phone records, the Of?ce
requested, and the Committee issued, 15 subpoenas duces tecum on June 1, 2016, for the
cell phone records of women who reported receiving text messages or phone calls related
to the allegations against Rep. Durham. Because of Special con?dentiality concerns, one
witness requested, and the Of?ce agreed to allow her, to voluntarily provide her records.12

 

 

?2 The records received from the wenien?s providers pursuant to the subpoenas were not helpful in establishing dates
and times or providing support for the text messages between Rep. Durham and the women. The text messages
referred to in this investigation generally fell into two categories: ?rst, there were texts for which we had screen shots
from the witnesses? phones showing dates and times; and second, there were texts that no longer existed on the
witnesses? cell phone because they had been deleted or lost when the phone containing the text was replaced with a
new one. The witnesscs, however, could usually provide an approximate time period for those texts.

When we compared the text logs obtained from the providers to the dates and times of the text screen shots or
estimated time periods for missing texts, We found that an accurate comparison between the two could not be made
for the following reasons:

1.

A large number of the screen shot texts did not have corresponding log entries in the or Verizon
records. We spoke with technical representatives from these providers, who told us that only SMS text
messages sent over their networks will show up in their records. Text messages sent over another network
via an application on the particular device, such as an iMessage sent from an iPhone or a message sent via a

7

v.
DETAILED FINDINGS

A. Representative Durham occupied a superior position of power to the women he
approached.

Representative Durham?s greater position of power in his interactions with?the women
interviewed was based on two dynamics: (1) Rep. Durham?s positionas a legislator and rising
leader in the House; and (2) the women?s perception that females working in and around the
General Assembly would be penalized professionally for complaining about conduct they
considered. inappropriate. - 

Representative Durham?s position as the freshman class leader, 13 Majority Party Whip,
and member of a number of committees, gave him access to legislative staff members, interns, and
lobbyists, albeit for different reasons. The investigation? revealed that legislative staff members
and interns rely on. their relationships with legislators for employment and references for future
employment opportunities at the Capitol. There was a perception among some staff members we
interviewed that those who displease a legislator may risk loss of these opportunities, if he
references are shared among the legislative members. 

The power differential between a legislator and a staff member or an intern is more
apparent than that between a lobbyist, who is independently employed, and .a legislator. The
investigation revealed that lobbyists, much like staff members and interns, depend on maintaining
a good working relationship with legislators for their livelihood and ?iture success. A lobbyist
depends on favorable support from legislators to satisfy and build a client base, and many female
lobbyists interviewed described the substantial ?nancial and professional stake they have in
avoiding anything that would jeopardize a good relationship with legislators. As Jane Doc #4 put
it, lobbyists do not have clients without legislators.? 

 

wi? network, will not show up on the provider records becauSe those messages travel over a different
provider?s network. Private Facebook messages are also carried by a different provider. Cell phone logs
indicated that Rep. Durham had an iPhone during the relevant time periods, as did many of the women;

2. Verizon keeps teXt message logs for only one year, and there were no records for the women using this
provider or for Rep. Durham from September 28, 2013, to May 12, 2015, almost 19 months; and

3. retained phone records only born November 2014 onward, and the last text messages
involving women using this provider occurred before November 2014; thus, we were unable to obtain records
for those women for the time period that they reported receiving texts.

?3 In December 2012, Rep. Durham was elected as the Assistant Floor Leader of the House, who also serves as the
freshman class leader.

1? On the other hand, a more experienced female lobbyist, Jane Doc #26, explained that legislators depend on lobbyists
for money from donors, for a good word to leadership for the legislator to be selected to committee positions, and for
support from his or her clients. 

Consequently, Rep. Durham was able to use his position as an elected of?cial to approach
female staff members, interns, and lobbyists in a manner that they would normally reject as
inappropriate or sexual in nature.

A number of lobbyists expressed the view that they had to be careful in de?ecting Rep.
Durham?s ?irtatious or sexually suggestive comments or advances so as not to do anything that
would make him mad at them, cause him to vote against their bills, get others to vote against them,
or denigrate them to other legislators. For example, during her interview, Jane Doc #17 stated that
she did not tell anyone about Rep. Durham?s persistent texts and unsolicited sexually suggestive
conduct in 2015, because she felt doing so would harm her relationship with the Republican
Caucus members, who might then feel the need to be ?standoffish? with her. Instead, she tried to
de?ect Rep. Durham?s sexually suggestive conduct in a way that would not ?tick? him off or make
him feel uncomfortable. Jane Doe a former lobbyist, gave a similar reason for not reporting
unsolicited inappropriate texts from Rep. Durham in 2013. During her interview, she broke into
tears and explained that people are afraid of Rep. Durham and that lobbyists do not want to
complain for fear of being viewed as untrustworthy. She also did not think she could complain to
the Legislature?s Human Resources Division because she was not an employee. When lobbyist
Jane Doe #63 received unsolicited sexually suggestive texts ?orn Rep. Durham in 2015 that made
her uncomfortable, she did not feel she could tell him to ?buzz off? for fear he would retaliate
against the bills she was supporting on behalf ?of her clients. She stated that if another male outside
the Legislature had acted as Rep. Durham had, she would have told him that he needed to ?lose
my number.? She did not feel she could do this with Rep. Durham given his position and in?uence.
Jane Doc #17 felt that Rep. Durham had a sense of entitlement, as if he was under the impression
that being a legislator gave him certain liberties with women. As Jane Doe #46 explained, the
inappropriate text messages Rep. Durham sent a fellow lobbyist ?put her between a rock and a
. hard place? beCause lobbyists have to be careful how they answer a legislator. She said, ?If you
piss them off, they are the ones with the vote; they have the trump card. They can make or break
you.? 

The l'obbyiSts? perception that they could not complain about Rep. Durham?s
inappropriate behavior is not without support. For example, a senior male lobbyist expressed his
view during an interview that enduring a Iegislator?s sexual advances is merely part of a female

- lobbyist?s job. He told the Of?ce in front of lobbyist Jane Doe #28, who had just reported that
Rep. Durham was ?hitting on? her in 2014, ?She is a female lobbyist over there; She has to take
this.? Similarly, John Doe #15, who witnessed Rep. Durham being ?cozy wi and making
advanCes toward lobbyist Jane Doe #28, described her as being in a weird position because she
needed Rep. Durham?s support on Some bills and could not really say no.15 In another instance
related by former lobbyist Jane Doe a male legislator recently agreed with her decision not to
formally complain about Rep. Durham?s conduct from 2013- and advised her to the effect that she
should keep quiet so people would not talk about-her after she worked so hard to get her job.

 

?5 John Doe #15 stated that he had witnessed Rep. Durham on numerous occasions ?hit on? any attractive female and
that the list of lobbyists he has seen Durham approach in this manner would include the whole lobbyist book. This
includes standing up close against the women, touching them, putting his arm around them, ?cuddling up,? and making
other such advances. He stated that this usually happened when Durham had been drinking.

9

No direct evidence was presented to the Of?ce that Rep. Durham?s vote was actually
affected by a lobbyist?s response. However, a lobbyist?s livelihood depends on her/his ability to
maintain a professional working relationship with legislators in order to advocate on behalf of
clients? interests in bills pending before the Legislature. The failure to maintain these professional -
boundaries may call into question the independent judgment of a legislator and is illustrated in
Rep. Durham?s case with two lobbyists in particular. First, on May 14, 2013, Jane Doe #47 sent
a text message to Rep. Durham a?er she noticed he was ?present not voting? on one of her bills.
He replied, ?Oh yeah that?s unconstitutional. I honestly didn ?t vote no because it was you.? And
after the 2013 Session was over, Rep. Durham sent Jane Doc #47 an unsolicited, private Facebook
message at 12:06 am. on August 26 asking, ?what?s up with ya?? She tried to de?ect the text with
her response and offered to get drinks next week. He responded, ?like I would ever norpick a dare 
you chose! i mean, i am the right wing wacko who sees you bringing union bills into my o??ice yet
i still eat our of your handfor some reason! Second, when Jane Doe #17 sent Rep. Durham a
text message on September 8, 2015, asking, ?How are you?? His response was ?Totally miss you.?
Jane Doe #17 replied, ?Session will be back before you know it!? to which he then responded in
several texts, want to see you before that. Ofoourse, you realize I could never tell you no. You
know I?ll do whatever you want. Just want a big hug. 

Young female staff members and interns likewise expressed the awkward position in which 
they found themselves when Rep. Durham made what they felt were overtures toward them.
Legislative staff member Jane Doe #49 described the pressure she was under when de?ecting-Rep.
Durham?s invitation for drinks in 2014 at a time she was hoping for a full-time job at the
Legislature. She stated getting such an invitation from a married man made her uncomfortable
and if it had been a male staff member on. her level who had approached her in this manner, she -
would have been more aggressive in telling him Representative Durham?s sexually -
suggestive comments and advances toward staff member Jane Doc #24 in 2013 made her ?super
uncomfortable,? but she wanted a career in the Legislature and did not want to be ?that girl? who
stood up to a legislator and was ridiculed for it. A close friend to whom Jane Doc #24 disclosed
Rep. Durham?s ?irting and sexual advances told us that Jane Doe #24 felt ?trapped,? ?awkward,?
and ?stuck in the middle.? Intern Jane Doe #44, after being the object of Rep. Durham?s advances
in 2015, stated that she informed legislative staff but did not want to file a formal complaint
because she wanted to keep herself out of it. She too had hoped for a legislative career.

B. Representative Durham obtained personal contact information from the women in
his capacity as a legislator or under the guise of legislative business or another
legitimate reason.

Representative Durham likely obtained cell phone numbers for these women horn their
business cards either at events or at Legislative Plaza, or ?om those who did not have a card, by
requesting that they text him their information for what appeared to be ?iture business related to
the Legislature. A few of the women either did not know how he obtained their numbers or did
not say, but their numbers are listed in business directories.

10

C. Representative Durham initiated contact about non?legislative matters and attempted
to meet the women alone. He often used alcohol in his interaction with the women.
He made inappropriate commentsof a sexual nature or engaged in- inappropriate
physical contact with some worn en. 

The individual accounts in Sections VI and VE show that Rep. Durham engaged in a
pattern of behavior that some women dubbed as ??shing? in an attempt to meet the woman alone.
The ??shing? took the form of flirting, unsolicited personal texts, persistent invitations for drinks,
complementing the woman?s appearance or physical attributes, or telling her that his marriage had
problems. Most of the women tried to de?ect his comments or made excuses for not meeting for
drinks, but in more than half of the instances, Rep. Durham?s behavior escalated into comments
of a sexual nature or actual touching. Lobbyists who received what they felt were inappropriate
communications or had reported encounters with Rep. Durham said they felt uncomfortable
meeting with him alone in his office on legislative business and many even refused to do so after
such encounters. Additionally, an intern, a staff member, and another young woman who had
dealings With the Legislature indicated that they no longer wanted careers in the Legislature after
encountering Rep. Durham?s advances. These individual accounts also illustrate the women?s
hesitancy to anger Rep. Durham by standing up. to him because of his power, whether real or
perceived, to affect their jobs and their reputations within the Legislature. As legislative clerk Jane
Doe #12'explained, when she told Rep. Durham that his requests for drinks with her in 20113 were
inappropriate because he was married and she was engaged, she said his response was, ?Welcome
to Capital Hill.? 5

VI. 
REPRESENTATIVE CONDUCT DURING 2015-2016

Jane Doc #44 Intern

Jane Doc #44 was an. intern during the 2015 Session. At that time she was a 23-year-old
college student. She ?rst became acquainted with Rep. Durham in 2015 when she worked as an
intern for Rep. John Doc #69. Her ?rst interaction with Durham was when he cam?e to?HRep. John
Doe #69?s of?ce and asked to see him. DeSpite the fact that she told Rep. Durham that Rep. John
Doc #69 was in a meeting, he walked in and interrupted.

The next interaction she had with Rep. Durham occurred at the end of the 2015 Session at
an ev-enin event Rep. John Doc #69 and Rep. John Doc #37 gave for lobbyists in the club room
at a}  a multi?story apartment building in Nashville. Interns are not normally allowed to
attend such events, but Jane Doe #44 stated she had special permission from Rep. John Doe #69
to help set up and serve the guests. Representative John Doe #37?s intern (Jane Doc #57) and his
legislative assistant (Jane Doc along with the legislative assistant from Rep. John Doe #69?s
of?ce (Jane Doe it 40) also assisted.

 

Early in the evening, Rep. Durham approached Jane Doc #44 near the bar area where she
had been serving drinks and engaged her in conversation. She infornied him that she was not a
?fan? of his after he interrupted the meeting in Rep. John Doe #69?3 of?ce. Representative Durham
?laughed it off,? and the two continued to talk. He was drinking but did not appear intoxicated at

ll

that time. During the course of the conversation, Jane Doe #44 told Rep. Durham that she was
interested in going to law school, and he offered his help. He asked for her cell phone number,
which Jane Doe #44 provided. Her cell phone was in another part of the room providing the music
for the event. 

Later that evening, Rep. Durham approached Jane Doe #44 and appeared to be intoxicated.
He told her that he and a couple of people were going back to Legislative Plaza to have a party ?if
you and a friend would like to come.? She declined his request. Sometime around 9:00 pm. to
10:00 he approached her a third time and began another conversation. At this point he
appeared ?pretty intoxicated.? He was much friendlier, and his speech was starting to slur. While
theytalked, Rep. Durham seemed to be looking past her'. When she turned to look, she saw interns
Jane Doe #70 and #71 listening to their conversation and whispering among themselves. At some
point, Rep. Durham asked Jane Doc #44 if she wanted to step out on the patio area outside the club
room. 16 She and Rep. Durham exited the club room and went to the patio area. One or two other
people were on the patio, but they soon went inside. Once she and Rep. Durham were alone, he
began moving closer to her as they talked; at one point, he moved toward her in an ?aggressive,
very ?irtatious? manner, and it became apparent to her that he was trying to kiss her. Jane Doe
#44 backed away and reminded Rep. Durham that he was married and she had a serious boyfriend.
He responded that his marriage was ?not going well.? When she again reminded him that he was 
married?and did not even know her, he told her he had never met anyone as intriguing as she and
he felt the two had a ?connection.? About this time, Jane Doc #40 came out onto the patio. Jane
Doe #44'recalled that Rep. Durham quickly. walked away ?om her and back to the party. The
incident lasted about 5-10 minutes.

The incident upset Jane Doe #44 to such an extent that she did not stay to help clean up but
called her boyfriend to come and pick her up. When she retrieved her cell pho '1 'ng
the party, she noticed Rep. Durham had already texted his cell phone number   
her. Jane Doc #44 went down the elevator alone and left in her boyfriend?s car. When she got in
her boyfriend?s car, she began crying and told him that ?this representative was trying to make a
move on me.? . 

     

The following day, Rep. John Doe #69 told her that there was a lot of discussion on the
?oor of the House that she had gone home with Rep. Durham the night before and that peOple
heard inappropriate exchanges between the two of them. She told Rep. John Doc #69 what
happened. The rumors made her angry, so she texted Rep. Durham something to the effect of 
hope you will quash the rumors because nothing happened.? Representative Durham responded,
?What rumors?? and that there was a lot of talk at the Plaza and it would go away. She recalled
responding that it may be easy for him as a representative but not for an intern falsely accused of
something, and it was not fair because she did what she should have done in that situation. Rep.
Durham, continued to be dismissive of her concerns. She no longer has the phone with those text
messages, but they came ?om his phone. number. 

 

 

?6 The main entrance to the tub room is through glass doors from a hallway where the elevators are located. 
On the opposite end of the way, approximately 75-100 feet from the club room entrance, there is another glass
door leading to a pool area. The pool is surrounded by concrete decking with plants and patio ?rmiture. The club
room itself is a backward shape. Near the top of the there is a solid wooden door that aiiows access to the 
hallway from the club room. This is the same hallway that ieads to the elevators and pool area.

 

12

Jane Doc #44 reported the incident to intern supervisor Jane Doc #6 within a day or two
but decided not to ?le a formal complaint. She felt she had handled the situation and wanted to
keep herself out of it. The intern supervisor told Jane Doe #44 to let her know if Rep. Durham
texted her again. Jane Doc #44 also tented her friend Jane Doc #7 about the incident. Jane Doc
#44 feels differently about reporting Rep. Durham?s conduct in hindsight, now that others have
complained and there is an investigation.

 

Following the   . incident, Jane Doc #44 said she was the object of disparaging
comments from interns Jane Does #70 and #71, who also attended. At an end of the year party for
interns, one of the other interns commented to Jane Doe #44?3 friend something to the effect of,
?See if she Jane Doc #44] ever'gets a job at the Plaza after she slept with a legislator.? Despite
being voted if;  by her peers, Jane Doe #44 said she left the party ?balling her eyes out.?

 

Jane Doc #44 recalled seeing Rep. Durham only one other time in the hallway. He made
contact with her but did not speak. The only other contact she had with him was in July 2015
when she received a text message from him asking ?How are you?? while she was at her
boyfriend?s house. She did not respond. In December 2015, she tented with her friend Jane Doe
#7 regarding the news stories about Rep. Durham. (See Attachment The same day, she
received a call horn The Tennessean but refused to comment because she did not want to be in the
media and wanted to put the incident behind her. 

Jane Doe #44 told us that she wanted to gain the respect of legislators as an intern and
realizes now how hard it is to be a woman in the political arena. She used to be passionate about
politics and had been very active in college politics, serving as the elected Vice President of
Student Government while in junior college. She had hoped for a political career. She was very
emotional in the interview and stated that the incident with Rep. Durham and the aftermath
?completely turned me away from wanting to be a part of the political process, one that I have
been very passionate about my whole life.? Jane Doe #44?5 current position is in a ?eld unrelated
to politics.

Twelve witnesses provided information relevant to Jane Doe #44?3 account:

Legislative assistant Jane Doc #40 described intern Jane Doc #44 as smart, a good kid,
dependable, and very personable who did a good job and was very interested in networking while
working as an intern. Jane Doc #40 also attended the reception at  where Jane Doe
#44 helped set up and serve and was aware that Jane Doc #44 used her cell phone to provide the
music for the event. The reception was on the top ?oor where the swimming pool was also located.
She said Rep. Durham appeared intoxicated when she spoke with him during the evening but Jane
Doc #44 did not. Around dusk, she stepped out on the patio in the pool area to smoke a-cigarette
and saw Rep. Durham and Jane Doe #44 standing together talking. When they went back inside,
Jane Doc #44 had a ?horri?ed? look on her face and reported that Rep. Durham tried to kiss her.
Jane Doc #44 appeared upset. Before she could help with clean up, Jane Doc #44 told Jane Doe
#40 that her boyfriend was picking her up, get on an elevator, and left. The next day, Jane Doe
#40 was called into Rep. John Doe #69?3 office with Jane Doc #44 after he heard rumors about
Jane Doc #44 and Rep. Durham. She was also rent when Jane Doc #44 told Rep. John Doc
#69 that Rep. Durham tried to kiss her at the She recalled that both she and Rep. John

   

  
 

13

Doc #69 told Jane Doc #44 to report the incident to the Legislative Internship Administrator (Jane
Doc and Jane Doe #44 left the of?ce to do so. Jane Doc #40 later recehone call from

the Legislative Internship Administrator asking if other interns were at the 

 

Fellow intern Jane Doc #7 described Jane Doc #44 as a ?iendly, nice person whom she
came to know ?pretty well? durin the 2015 Session and socialized with outside of work. She did
not attend the reception at the but knew Jane Doc #44 was there. At 8:46 pm. on April
15, 2015, the night of the recept1on, she received a text message from Jane Doe #44 stating, ?Dude.
. . Keep a secret.? Jane Doc #7 responded with ?Uh oh. What?s This is terture I am so
(Attachment at 1.) Jane Doc #44 never re3p0nded but later explained in a text
message that this was because her phone was being used to play the music. (See id.) The next
day, April 16, 2015, Jane Doc #7 and #44 had breakfast together in Legislative laza cafeteria
when Jane Doe #44 revealed that Rep. Durham got her off to himself at the and tried to
kiss her. She told Jane Doc #7 that she told him no, that she had a boyfriend. Jane Doc #44 told
Jane Doc #7 that Ishe was upset and uncomfortable about the incident because she had a serious
boyfriend. Jane Doc #7 was not sure but thought Jane Doe #44?s boyfriend picked her up ?om
- the reception. She recalled Jane Doc #44 telling her that she had a couple of drinks at the reception.
She encouraged Jane Doc #44 to ?le a complaint with the Director of Legislative Administration
or the Legislative Internship Administrator because Jane Doc #44 wanted a job at the Legislature 
after the session. She said she felt Rep. Durham was using his position to ?hit on? an intern and
Jane Doc #44 needed to report it. A text message exchange later that day conveyed this to Jane
Doc #44. (See id. at 6-7.) Jane Doc #44 also told her that Rep. John Doc #69 talked to her about
the rumors that she had ?hooked up? with Rep. Durham. At 4: 12 pm. the same day, Jane Doc #44
texted, ?I?m so upset [Jane Doc [Rep John Doc #69] just talked with me be a rumor went
around that 1 went home with Jeremy Durham! Wtf.? (Id. at 2.) Jane Doc #7 replied, honestly
think you need to bring it to [Jane Doc #53] and cover your own ass. This isn?t something you
want a sleazy politician ruining your ?iture here over.? (Id) Jane Doc #7 thought that Jane Doe
#44 told Rep. Durham to make the rumors go away. Jane Doc #7 also recalled the ear-end party
for the interns on April 28, 2015, at which Jane Doc #44 was voted  by the other
interns. When Jane Doc #44 overheard other interns talking about the rumor that she ?hooked up?
with Rep. Durham, Jane Doc #44 became upset and cried the entire way home. Jane Doc #7 drove
her home. The two discussed this in a text exchange the next day. (See id. at 9-10.) Jane Doc #7
was also aware that Rep. Durham texted Jane Doc #44 in July 2015, and they alluded to this in a
text exchange on December 17, 2015, at 11:44 am. (See id. at 12-14.) Jane Doc #7 stated that
Jane Doc #44 Wanted to work at the Legislature and possibly run for of?ce, but after the incident
with Rep. Durham, she decided not to interview for a job or have anything. to do with politics.
When she and Jane Doc #44 last communicated on December 17, 2015, they discussed Jane Doc
#44 coming forward, but Jane Doc #44 just wanted to put it behind her and was worried about
con?dentiality. Jane Doc #44 texted, wonder if I should?ve ?led a complaint . . . . He?s [Rep
Durham] one of the main reasons I didn?t want to stay at the legislature not to mention I landed a
pretty sweet job. 1 would prefer not to have any part in it but I?m open to considering it be there?s
nothing worse than being accused of something you didn?t do. I also want to avoid having that
happen to anyone else in the future be that?s what gives politics a. bad rep. . . . l?d rather stay out
of it. . . . . It?s a chapter of my life id [sic] like to remain closed.? (Id. at 12, 14-16.) Jane Doc #7
provided the Of?ce with screen shots of her text messages with Jane Doc #44 between April 15,
2015, and December 17, 2015.

  
 

 
 

 

l4

 

Legislative staff member John Doc #41 attended the reception at the He heard
someone comment that Rep. Durham was ?hitting on? Jane Doc #44, and he thought it appeared
they were going to kiss. At one point, Rep. Durham and Jane Doc #44 disappeared, and he began
looking for them. Shortly thereafter, Rep. Durham and Jane Doc #44 reappeared at the reception.
He saw Jane Doe #44 get on one elevator, Rep. Durham on another, and he followed them down
to the lobby. John Doc #41 observed Jane Doc #44 get into a car and watched as Rep. Durham,
who was following some distance behind her, Walked toward Legislative Plaza.

 

Legislative assistant Jane Doc #10 helped with the reception along with Jane Doe
#44 and others. She recalled seeing Rep. Durham talking ane Doc #44 at some point but did
not see anything unusual about the conversation. Nor did she see them leave the reception before
she walked back to Legislative Plaza with intern Jane Doe #57. It was dark when she left and there
were still a lot of people at the reception. Jane Doe #44 did not appear intoxicated while Jane Doe 
#10 was present. Based on her interactions with Jane Doe #44 at work, Jane Doe #10 described
her as very ambitious, driven, very professional, dressed nicely, and very outgoing. She stated that
Jane Doc #44 appeared very smart, and she could tell Jane Doe #44 was a good intern that could
be relied upon to get work done. She never saw Jane Doc #44 engage in any inappropriate
behavior. 

Intern Jane Doe #57 stated that she and Jane Doc #44 were acquaintances, Facebook
friends, and would oCcasiOnally socialize during the 2015 Session. She described her as ?bubbly,?
and a very nice, kind person who was ?iendly and outgoing to everyone and who volunteered at
her church on Wednesday evenings. She helped set up and serve at the reception at the
with Jane Doe #44. She estimated that 25 ?30 legislative assistants, representatives, and lobbyists
attended. After dark, she saw Rep. Durham and Jane Doe'#44 talking in a corner 'of the main room
and it appeared to her that they were ?irting and were interested in each other. She knew Jane Doe
#44 had a boyfriend and stated that it was not the way a representative and an intern should have
been interacting. She thought Jane Doe #44 appeared to her to be ?a little bit buzzed? later in the
evening. Jane Doc #57 did not interact with Rep. Durham and- did not see him leave with Jane
- Doe #44. She left around 8:00 pm. with Rep. John Doe #3 7?5 legislative assistant (Jane Doc 
The next day, she heard rumors that Jane Doe #44 was drunk and slept with Rep. Durham. She
also recalled the latter rumor being discussed by some interns at the interns? year?end party. She
went in the bathroom during the event and saw Jane Doc #44 crying and heard her say that the
rumors were not true. She stated it was her opinion Jane Doc #44 is a truthful person.

  

Intern JaneDoe #62 attended thejreception with interns Liane Does #70 and #71. She saw 
Jane Doc #44 helping with the food and drinks. Jane Does #62 and #71 recalled seeing Rep.
Durham and Jane Doc #44 talking in the main reception room, and Jane Doc #62 thought they
looked a bit friendly because Rep. Durham was standing close to Jane Doe #44 and the two were
laughing. Jane Doe #62 hear-d Jane Does #70 and #71 comment that Jane Doc #44 was acting
inappropriately by standing ?a little closer than they should have been.? But in her interview, Jane
Doc #71 said she did not see any inappropriate behavior by Jane Doc #44 or anything unasual
about her conversation with Rep. Durham. Nor could she tell if either he or Jane Doc #44 were
intoxicated based on her observations. She did see Rep. Durham leave the club room with Jane
Doc #44. Jane Doe #62 stated that she did not see any physical contact between Rep. Durham and
Jane Doc #44 and did not see either of them leave the event. Both Jane Doe #62 and #71 recalled

15

Jane Doe #44 telling them and Jane Doc #70 that her boyfriend was and she was
leaving. Jane Doc #71 said she saw nothing out of the ordinary about Jane Doe #44?5 physical
appearance when she came to say goodbye. Jane Doe #62 recalled that after the reception, Jane
Doc #44 talked to her about the rumors circulating at Legislative Plaza that she had slept with Rep.
Durham and was upset about them. Jane Doc #71 recalled discussing the rumors with Jane Does
#44 and #62 after an interns? meeting. Jane Doe #44 told them that the rumors were untrue and
that she had talked to Legislative Internship Administrator Jane Doe #6 about the incident with
Rep. Durham. Jane Doe #71 also recalled that Jane Doe #44 left the interns? year?end party upset.

intern Jane Doe #70 had a different version of the events. She stated that at some point,
Rep. Durham approached her and Jane Does #62 and #71 and appeared to have been drinking
heavily. She said his conversation with them was ??irty,? touching their arms and ?coming in my
personal space,? which was not reported by the other interns. She said that she thought Jane Doc
#44 acted ?forward? and inappropriately with Rep. Durham that evening. She was the only witness
who said she saw Jane Doe #44 repeatedly-touch Rep. Durham?s arm when the two were talking
and whispering and that they were holding hands when they exited the reception through a door.
She also stated that Rep. Durham and Jane Doe #44 were absent from the reception about 20
minutes and when they returned, their clothes were ?ruf?ed? and their hair ?a mess.? No other
witnesses who were present at the reported this. She was also the only witness who said
that Jane Doe #44 appeared intoxicated and was stumbling and had slurred speech. Jane Doe #70
stated that at some point, Jane Doc #44 came over to talk to her and Jane Does 62 and #71, but
they did not talk to her because they did not want to be associated with her. She stated she later
saw. Rep. Durham and Jane Doc #44 leave together in the same elevator and that Jane Doe #44
said, ?Jeremy, are you coming?? Additionally, she was the only witness interviewed who said
Jane Doc #44 generally dressed inappropriately, wearing low-cut shirts, high skirts, tight clothes,
and extremely high heels. However, Jane Doe #70 stated that she never observed Jane Doe #44
engage in any other inappropriate behavior during the 2015 Session. .

 

Representative John Doc #69 described Jane Doc #44 as a smart, young, good?looking
female with good morals, and a ?good sound girl? who knew her goals and ambitions.
Representative John Doc #37 described her as young, very attractive, very friendly but not
?irtatious, outgoing, happy, and fun-loving. Both Rep. John Doe #69 and Rep. John Doc #37
recalled Rep. Durham being present at the reception they gave at the April 2015 and
that Jane Doc #44 helped serve food and drinks. Representative John Doe #69 saw Rep. Durham
talking to Jane Doe #44 around 8 pm. but did not think anything of it. He recalled that Jane Doe
#44 did not stay to clean up as planned and left without telling him. He learned from Jane Doe
#40 that Jane Doe #44 was upset about something and left with her boyfriend. The next day, he
heard rumors on the House ?oor that Rep. Durham and Jane Doe #44 had been locked. in a room
together and was very angry about how this re?ected on the integrity of his of?ce. He remembered
calling Jane Does #44 and #40 into his of?ce for an explanation. He said he did not ask Jane Doe
#44 for her version of the events, and all she told hirn was ?Rep. Durham. made me feel
uncomfortable.? She did not want to pursue it further. He stated someone may have told him later
they saw Rep. Durham and Jane Doe #44 on the patio outside the receptidn roorn. Representative
hn De #37 did not observe any interaction between Jane Doe #44 and Rep. Durham at the

  
   

  

l6

Legislative Internship Administrator Jane Doc #6 stated that intern Jane. Doe #44 came to
her during the 2015 Session and reported" that she was assisting Rep. John Doc #69 with an after-
'hours reception when Rep. Durham approached her and said something that made her very
uncomfortable. Jane Doe #6?s impression was that Rep. Durham suggested that they leave 
together. Jane Doe #44 told her that the conversation with Rep. Durham upset her and made her
so uncomfortable that she called her boyfriend and left. According to Jane Doc Jane Doe #44.
was upset when discussing the incident because Rep. Durham was married and she was afraid Rep.
John Doe #69 was upset with her for leaving the event early. Jane Doc #6 informed the Director
of Legislative Administration (Jane Doe #5 3) about the incident but did not give her the intern?s
name. In her interview, Jane Doe #53 veri?ed that she received a report that Rep. Durham
approached an intern at a reception and was ?too forward,? making her so uncomfortable that'the
intern called her boyfriend to pick her up. The intern did not want to ?le auformal complaint, so
Jane Doc #53 made a record of the incident.

Jane Doe #17 - Lobbyist

Jane Doc #17 has been a lobbyist since 2005 . In 2013, fellow lobbyists warned her to stay
away from Rep. Durham, but she dismissed the warnings. She became ac uainted with Re.
Durham during the 2013 Session when She lobbied his then suite?mate Rep. 
. and sometimes talked with him on those occasions. The ?rst time she recalled meeting With Rep.
Durham in his of?ce was on or about March 10, 2014. She approached him regarding his proposed
amendment to a bill that negativer impacted one of her husband? 5 clients. Representative Durham
had somehow seen her Facebook page and made comments such as, don?t? want you to think
I?m stalking you but your wedding was so beautiful? and other compliments. Although it is not 
uncommon to be Facebook friends with legislators, Jane Doe #17 thought his statements were odd
because they were not friends. He threw a ball back and forth with her during the conversation as
they talked. She remembered the door to his office being open. They became Facebook friends
sometime in March 2014.

   

During the 2015 Session, Rep. Durham was on the Insurance and Banking and State
Government Committees, and Jane Doe #17 had no bills to discuss with him. In January or
February 2015, Rep. Durham invited her to his of?ce in the early afternoon. There was no speci?c
business reason for the visit, and Rep. Durham shut the door between his of?ce and that of his
legislative assistant after they entered. This made her wonder what he was going to tell her. She
was sitting on the couch in his of?ce, and Rep. Durham was initially sitting in a chair.
Representative Durham asked her something like, ?What?s going on in your world?? He made
himself a cocktail and offered her one, which she declined. Representative Durham then came and 
sat next to her on the couch and engaged her in small talk and began discussing other lobbyists.
He took out the lobbyist handbook and made comments as he looked at the pictures such as ?i
think she is really hot? or don?t like her.? He told Jane Doe #17 that ?you?re the hottest girl in.
here.? He also told her that they could talk like this because nothing was going to happen and
?we?re buddies.? He told her that she was so ?distracting? that when he had seen her leaning over
wearing a certain dress, it was all he could do to stay focused. She. recalled Rep. Durham saying
something to the effect that she had the kind of ?gure he ?nds attractive. Jane Doc #17 reminded
him that he had 'a pretty wife at home, which he dismissed. When she got up to leave after about
20 minutes, Rep. Durham came over to her, moved into her, and gave her a full frontal hug,

17

squeezing her breasts into him and making a sound like it was the type of sound
that Jane Doc #17 said she would really get ?pissed about if her husband made that to another
woman? because, to her, it had asexual connotation. . 

Jane Doc #17 stated that after this meeting, Rep. Durham engaged in what she described
as ?light-hearted ?irting? with her and would make comments like ?as long as I can have a hug.?-
In the two or three weeks afterward, she received an estimated 25-30 text messages from him,
usually during session days and not later than 8 pm. He sent overly familiar texts unrelated to any
legislative business. Some of the texts said things like, ?Hey, what are you doing? . . . Are you
around? . . . Why haven?t you stopped by? . . . 1miss you.? Other texts said, ?Touching base. . . .
Stop by. . . '.Can we get a beer?? Representative Durham wanted. her to meet him alone for drinks
?out our direction,? which Jane Doc #17 thought was odd since she lived in Nashville and he lived
in Brentwood. He asked her to meet at least three times,_but she always told him she was
unavailable.-

In early April 2015, Rep. Durham asked Jane Doe #17t h' ff which she did.
- 'At some point during the conversation, she told him she was fig   She stated
he ?blatantly? looked up and down her shirt at her breasts and stated something to the effect of
?I?m sure that Sh tt ed to de?ect the comment with something
like ?Oh stop. However, she began to get irritated with
. him and wanted to keep things-- ?light.? She explained that she wanted to maintain proper
boundaries with him while at the same time not ?tick off the legislator.? She stayed about ten
minutes. Representative Durham tried to hug her as she left his office, and she moved her body
sideways to avoid a full frontal hug. Representative Durham responded, ?You?re not going to
press those big boobs against me again?? Jane Doc #17 told him don?t have time for my husband
to go to jail (referring to how he might react to Rep. Durham? 5 behavior).? Representative Durham
said, ?Oh, is he the jealous type?? Jane Doc #17 responded, ?No, he is the husband type.? After
this incident, she thought Rep. Durham got the message that she was not going to allow his
behavior to continue escalating because she received fewer text messages from him.

   

          

After the 2015' Session ended, she received a few more text messages from Rep. Durham,
some late at night. For example, on May 5, 2015, at 1:13 am, he sent a message to her and another
number saying, ?Hi. Mm.? When she texted him the following day regarding the late-night text, 
he responded ?That?s random. I probably tried texting you and accidentally added someone else
to it; Ha sorry for partying!? (Attachment at 1.)

'On June 10, 2015, Jane Doe #17 texted Rep. Durham about scheduling an appointment
with him regarding one of her clients. In response to her texts inquiring whether she should stop
by his of?ce, Rep. Durham replied, ?You know there?s a thousand places I?d rather meet you than
my office ha.? (Id. at 1-2.) Jane Doc #17 said she felt the need to warn her client, who was
involved in education in Williamson County, that Rep. Durham was ?friendly? and ?kind of a ?irt?
because she Was afraid he would try to hug her too closely in front of the client. She ended up
cancelling the meeting.

On September 8, 2015, at 2:25 pm, Jane Doc #17 sent Rep. Durham a message asking,
?How are you?? She believes she was trying to reestablish contact with him in order to meet with

18

him on client business. His response at 9:43 pm. was ?Totally miss you.? (Id. at 2.) Jane Doc
#17 replied, ?Session will be back before you know it!? to which he then responded-in several
texts, want to see you before that. Of course, you realize I could never tell you no. You know
I?ll do whatever you want. Just want a big hug.? (Id) Jane Doe #17 texted back, He then
asked, ?ls peck on the lips out of the question? es I ad.? (Id) She thinks she responded
something like, ?Ha, most likely? or ?Ha   that is the last thing I?m thinking
about.? She stated she answered Repmanner to keep him from being
uncomfortable. On October 29, 2015, she received another text from Rep. Durham ?out of the
blue? asking ?Are you still with child? Haven?t heard from you.? (Id)

 
 

When news of the allegations against Rep. Durham surfaced in January 2016, Jane Doe
#17 called Rep. John Doc #68. She did not tell anyone about Rep. Durham?s behavior in 2015
because she felt it would damage her relationship with the Caucus members. She thought they
. would feel the need to be ?standof?sh? to her if she did. In hindsight, she regrets not being stronger
in rejecting Rep. Durham?s conduct and deleted most of the texts for fear her husband would be
offended by them or disapprove of something she said in response. She has since discussed Rep.
Durham?s behavior with her husband and told him about the texts she deleted. Representative
Durham?s conduct ultimately resulted in her decision not to go back to his of?ce or directly lobby 
him during the 2016 Session. She stated that Rep. Durham barely made. contact with her this 
. sessmn.

Jane Doe #17 stated that Rep. Durham?s behavior is not the norm for legislators; he is the
only one who has ever texted or said anything in a way that gave her pause. She felt anyone else
would have thought she was rude if brushed off as many times as she brushed off Rep. Durham?s
advances, but he was like a ?dog on a bone.? Jane Doc #17 provided screen shots of the text
messages with Rep. Durham remaining on her iPad from May 5 to October 29, 2015. I

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #17?3 account:

In his interview, legislative staff member John Doe #41 stated that in January 2016, Jane
Doe #17 showed him inappropriate texts she previously received from Rep. Durham. He
remembered seeing multiple texts messages sent between 11:00 pm. and 1:00 am.

Representative John Doe #68 stated that he was contacted by Jane Doe #17 after some
lawmakers called for Rep. Durham to resign as Whip. She asked him whether a screen shot of
late?night text messages from Rep. Durham requesting pictures of a woman whose identity Jane
Doe #17 would not disclose or a text to him saying, you don?t quit teXting me my husband?s
going to jail? would be suf?cient to constitute sexual harassment. Representative John Doe #68
discussed this with the Director of Legislative Administration but did not obtain the texts Jane Doe
#17 reported.

19

Jane Doe #63 Lobbyist

Jane Doe #63 formerly served as an intern and has been a lobbyist since 2010. She did not
know Rep. Durham prior- to 2013 and had no speci?c memories of him during his ?rst session. In
fall 2013, Jane Doc #63 attended the annual meeting of the Tennessee Lobbyists Association in,
Gatlinburg, Tennessee. She recalled being with a group at a local brewery one evening.
Representative Durham was there with another group of people and appeared to be very?drunk. 
Jane Doe #63 stated he approached her-and ?hit on? her in the bar and was ?chatting [her] up.?
Representative Durham told Jane Doe #63 that he had seen her around and wanted to get to know
her. He told her he thought when viewing her ?'om behind that she was another lobbyist he named
but that she was much prettier than the other lobbyist, whom he referred. to as ?butter face,?
meaning everything ?but her? face looked good. RepresentatiVe Durham talked to Jane Doc #63
for about 30 minutes and tried to get her to stay with him at the bar. She said he was ?leering? at
her below the neck, looking her up and down, leaning into her, and wobbling during their
conversation. Jane Doc #63 said she was struggling to get away from him and eventually a
colleague, John Doe #72, who had beenwatching the conversation, intervened; John Doc #72 told
Rep. Durham that he would go wherever he wanted to go with him instead. Jane Due #63 stated
Rep. Durham?s behavior ?creeped me out? and ?made me feel gross.? He may have asked fer her
card or phone number that evening as well. The next day, she discussed his behavior with other
lobbyists (she named Jane Does #27, #30, #45, #52, and #61 as possibly there) either at
breakfast or during a break in the conference. The consensus amongst the group was ?welcome to
the club.? 'When she saw Rep. Durham after returning to Nashville, he jokingly referred to the
incident and mentioned that they should have a drink. Jane Doe #63 brushed off his invitation.
She had no further interaction with Rep. Durham in 2013 or during the 2014 Session because he
was not on any committees she had business with. I  

Following the Tennessee Waltz in 2014, Jane Doc #63 posted a picture of herself at the
event on acebook. She received a private Facebook message from Rep. Durham, commenting
on the picture, stating he did not want to post it publicly but ?Damn you look amazing.? Later in
2014, Rep. Durham began sending unsolicited Facebook messages to her, sometimes late at night.
For example, on October'6, 2014, Rep. Durham messaged Jane Doe #63 at 11:19 ?How are
thingsl?? (Attachment at 1.) The next morning When she finally responded, Rep. Durham
messaged ?Saw you were online and didn?t know if you were up. Running against a dem is way
better than running against an (Id) She described this as unusual, given the time he sent the
message and the fact that the Legislature was out of session. On November 20, 2014, at 10:21
pm, Rep. Durham messaged her Again, she did not reapond until the next morning when
she messaged back ?Hey! All 0k?? Representative Durham responded, ?Of course. Like I need
a reason to message you!? (Id. at 2, 3.) The day before New Year?s Eve, Rep. Durham sent
another ?Hey you? at 11:54 pm. (Id. at 3.) She thought he may have called at some point and
asked her to lunch as well. 

In the 2015 Session, Rep. Durham served on the State Government Committee and Jane
Doc #63 was advocating for two bills over which Rep. Durham had in?uence. The votes for both
were ?tight,? and she knew that Rep. Durham and Rep. .1 ane Doc #33 were close friends and often
voted as a ?package.?

20

During March and April 2015, Jane Doc #63 began receiving a number of unsolicited text
messages of a personal nature from Rep. Durham. She assumed he got her cell phone number
from her business card. Between March 6 and 10, 2015, Jane Doc #63 exchanged texts with Rep.
Durham discussinglegislation. (Id. at 4-7.) Then at 11:01 pm. on March 11, 2015, he sent a text
asking, ?You awake?? Jane Doe #63 did not respond until the morning of March 12 and asked,
?Hey! I was asleep. What?s up?? He replied, ?I?m one of those crazy people who thinks shop
late at nite.? She moved the conversation to a discussion of her bill but he. interjected, ?My gosh
it?s hot when you break out the legal rhetoric.? She replied, ?You are a mess? and the conversation
ended. (Id. at 7-10.) At 9:50 p.rn., Rep. Durham texted, ?Can?t stop thinking about you and I
kinda wish I were kidding but not really. . . It?s?the way you carry yourself. My gosh.? In. response 
to Jane Doe #63?s simple ?Thanks. . . he sent several texts saying, ?You so hate me. . . L01. . .
Give me time. . . Like what a perfect I?m repulsed response. I don?t know how I could be more
for tha She again told him ?you are a mess!? and ?Goodnight.? (Id. at 10?12.)

There were more daytime exchanges regarding one of the bills on March 13 and April 1,
2015. When Jane Doc #63 asked Rep. Durham to stick with her position on the bill on April 1, he
tented, ?Ha that might require more than a text! You might actually have to say hi to me  the
hallway! . . . You?re cold as ice!? (Id. at 16-17.) She did not respond.

On April 3, 2015, Rep. Durham 5th her a picture of a bottle of what appears to be whiskey
and a glass with ice and liquid in it along with ?thought you?d appreciate what I?m doing right
now.? It was 3:56 in the afternoon. (Id. at 17.) At 7:43 p.rn., he texted that Rep. Jane Doe #33
was ?with us? and that will take care of it partially bc you?re correct on the issue and partially
be I adore you.? Jane Doe_#63 simply responded, ?I?ll take it! (Id. at 18.)

On April 6, 2015, Rep. Durham sent a test at 8:11 ?Did you go home?? She replied
that she had tickets to an event and asked, ?What?s Up?? He then asked if she was around to watch
a game. She replied ?Rain check!? (Id. at 18-19.) On April 7, the two texted about a bill and Jane
Doc #63 thanked Rep. Durham for his help. He replied, ?But that doesn?t get you off the [hook]
for drinks.? She replied, ?I?ll bring my sweatshirt!? He responded, ?What about thurs-sun. . . My
roommate is gone and I?ll be super bored.? When she responded ?Nice try,? Rep. Durham said,
?That?s not what I meant. . . I was trying to be transparent!? Her response was have my little
dude [so] drinks won?t work this week or'weekend.? (Id. at 20?21.)

I On April 15, 2015, Rep. Durham texted, ?Don?t-you like when I make up reasons to talk
to you? I?m cool like that.? (Id. at 22.) Jane Doe #63 did not respond. The texts became less
frequent and then stopped at the end of September 2015 . .

Jane Doe #63 explained that even though Rep. Durham?s behavior toward her made her
uncomfortable, did not feel I could tell him to buzz off,? for fear he would retaliate against the
bills she was supporting on behalf of her clients. She stated if another male had been
communicating with her as he had, outside of legislative work, she would have made it clear to
the individual he needed to ?lose my number.? She did not feel she could do this with Rep. Durham -
given his position and in?uence. She stated that his behavior affected her ability to do her job.
Jane Doc #63 provided screen shots of the texts and Fac'ebook messages on her Cell phone from
October 6 to December 30, 2014, and March .6 to September 25, 2015.

21

The following additional information was provided to the Office that is relevant to Jane
Doe #63?slaccount: 

Lobbyist Jane Doe #18 recalled having a lunch meeting during which Jane Doe #63 told
her about several ?creepy experiences? she had with Rep. Durham. Jane Doe #63 told her that she
got a text message from him telling her that his ?roommate was going to be out of town? and
suggesting she get together with him. 

Lobbyist John Doc #72 recalled an incident during the 2013 Tennessee Lobbyists 
Association annual meeting in Gatlinburg involving Rep. Durham and a lobbyist. He and other
lobbyists were sitting at?a table upstairs in a bar when he noticed Rep. Durham was talking loudly
with a female lobbyist in a manner that was drawing everyone?s attention. He remembered Jane
Does #63 and #8 being among the lobbyists there but could not recall which lobbyist Rep. Durham
was talking to. Someone at his table mentioned that one of them needed to ?rescue? the female
lobbyist, who appeared to be trying to get away from Rep. Durham. John Doe #72 leftthe table
and engaged Rep. Durham in conversation to allow the female lobbyist to leave, although he could
not recall what they talked about. 

Jane Doe #30 -- Lobbyist

Jane Doc #30 has been a lobbyist since 2008. The first time she recalled meeting Rep.
Durham was sometime around April 2014, when she was working on a clothing drive project for
one of her firm?s corporate clients. Representative Durham came to have his picture made with
the corporate of?cials because the client has offices in his legislative district. Jane Doe #30 took
the picture with her cell phone, and Rep. Durham asked her to send it to his phone, whih she did
ithin a few minutes, he texted back, ?Thank you, let?s grab a drink sometime? from 

 She thought the invitation for a drink was odd because she and Rep. Durham were not
acquainted. The text made her feel like he was ?fishing, throwing the bait ou to see if she Would 
respond. In her mind, he was a ?creepy dude? because she does not have drinks with men'she does
not know. She did not recall having any further communication with Rep. Durham in 2014.

    
    
 

Her next communication with Rep. Durham did not occur until the 2015 Session. Her firm
was representing a client on a bill. Originally, one of the ?rm?s partners was leading the lobbying
efforts with her, but in late March or early April, Jane Doe #30 was assigned to lobby Rep .?Durharn.
One day, she was waiting outside Rep. Durham?s of?ce for an opportunity. to discuss the legislation
when he approached her and told her that he was glad she came to see him because she had never
lobbied him and he had wanted to talk to her. She stated that Rep. Durham never said why he
wanted to talk to her, which seemed overly familiar and put her on guard. When they entered his
of?ce, he shut the door and sat in a chair a few feet fi?om hers. Jane Doe #30 began to discuss the
legislation, but Rep. Durham kept interrupting by making a reference to a ?mini~fridge? in his
office. He told her he kept mixers in the refrigerator and liquor in his desk and if ?you are ever
over here late and want a drink? to come by his of?ce. Jane Doc #30 kept talking about the
legislation when Rep. Durham got up and opened the ?mini~f?ridge? to show her the drinks in it.
He asked no questions about the bill, nor did he engage in any discussion about it when she asked
if he had any concerns about it. It Seemed to her that her discussion about the legislation was
?white noise? in the midst of his repeated references to having drinks. She thought he was

22

unprofessional and decided to leave through the door into the hallway. She stated that Rep.
Durham walked out into the hallway with her and commented, ?I?m for your bill but I?m going to
expect something in return.? No one else was in the hallway at the time. Jane Doc #30 was so
annoyed by Rep. Durham?s comment that she snapped, ?We have the votes. We don?t need yours,
thar?ts.? She took his comment as ?dropping the bait? to see if she would have drinks with him.
She understood it to mean that he expected her to have a drink and spend time with him. She felt
that Rep. Durham was ?hitting? on her and was ?disrespectful? to her. She became tearful during
the interview. She explained that this type of behavior is rare in the Legislature and this ?bizarre
interaction? with Rep. Durham was the ?rst time she had experienced conduct like this ?om a
legislator.

After this experience, she told one of the ?rm?s partners, John Doe #48, about Rep.
Durham?s behavior and that she would no longer lobby him. With Jane Doe #30?3 permission, the
partner subsequently contacted Rep. John Doe #42 in March or April 2015 about Rep. Durham?s
behavior and told. Jane Doe #30 that the ?rm would support her if she wanted to ?le a formal
complaint. After The Tennessean articles appeared in January 2016 with stories of other women?s
experiences with Rep. Durham, Rep. John Doe #42 contacted the partner to ask if Jane Doc #30
wanted to come forward and talk to Rep. Jane Doc #25 ?off campus.? Representative John Doe
#42 called and talked to her about this as well. Jane Doe #30 and the partner met with Rep. John
Doe #42 at Legislative Plaza, and she became emotionai and had a ?cryfest? before the meeting.
During the interview, she stated Rep. Durham?s behavior made her angry because her male
counterparts would not have had to deal with that type of behavior.

Jane Doe #30 ultimately declined to ?le a formal complaint. On January 28, 2016, she
tented Rep. Jane Doe #25 and thanked her for her willingness to have an anonymous and discreet
conversation. She told Rep. Jane Doe #25 that while have a desire to make sure nothing like
this (or worse) happens to anyone else that doesn?t have a bench as deep as mine [a reference to
her bosses watching out for their own] . . . I struggle with the anonymity aspect of coming forward?
when her husband and family did not know about Rep. Durham?s comments to her. (Attachment
at 2?3 .) Because the press was ?swarming around this issue, and the plaza buzzing with people
trying to ?gure cut who is coming forward? after the newspaper articles, her greatest fear was that

her family would read her name in the paper. (Id. at 4~5 .) Because she felt that she needed to keep
herself ?out of this situation,? she decided not to come forward. (Id. at In the interview, she
said she did not want to be in this situation or be in the newspaper and she did not want to harm
her reputation at the Legislature. Representative Durham?s behavior has affected her work, and
when she recently had a bill before a committee on which Rep. Durham serves, she did not lobby
him on the bill.

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #30?3 account: -

Lobbyist John Doc #48 stated that a member of his ?rm, Jane Doc #30, was assigned to

lobby Rep. Durham on a bill in 2015. She came to him after meeting with Rep. Durham and stated
she ?had the worst experience with Jeremy Durham.? She said Rep. Durham told her ?I?ll vote

23

for this but you may want some of this pocket candy?? This was the same day of the incident
and she was upset and did not like or appreciate Rep. Durham?s conduct. Jane Doe #30 said she
told Rep. Durham don?t need your vote.? John Doc #48 and his partner in the firm thought Rep.
Durham?s conduct toward Jane Doe #30 was inappropriate and sexualin nature. John Doc #48
decided to discuss the incident with Rep. John Doe #42 after getting 3116': Doe #30?s permission to
do so. In subsequent conversations, Rep. John Doe #42 indicated that Jane Doc #30 would have
to ?go public? and file a formal complaint in order to address Rep. Durham?s conduct, which she
decided not to do. During the 2016 Session, Rep. John Doe #42 approached John Doe #48 about
the 2015' incident involving Rep. Durham and Jane. Doc #30 and told him Rep. Jane Doe #25 was
willing to meet Jane Doe #30 away ?om the Capitol to discuss the incident. He provided Rep.
Jane Doc #25 ?5 personal cell phone number if Jane Doe #30 wanted to discuss the incident. In the
end, Jane Doe #30 decided not to meet with Rep. Jane Doc #25. Jane Doc #30 and the arm have
decided that she will no longer lobby Rep. Durham as a result of the 2015 incident.

Rep. John Doe #42 stated that, in March or April 2015, he was approached by lobbyist
John Doc #48 aboutan incident in Rep. Durham?sOf?ce involving a female lobbyist in his ?rm, 
whom he identi?ed as Jane Doc #30. John Doc #48 told him that Jane Doe #30 went to Rep.
Durham?s of?ce to ask his support for a bill, and he allegedly said words to the effect of 
need to do something for me if I do something for you.? Rep. John Doe #42 got the impression
that-this incident occurred during the 2015 Session. He met with Rep. Jane Doe #25 and legislative
staff members John Does #22 and #41 and informed them of the allegations but did not reveal Jane
Doe #30?3 identity. They determined the proper procedure would require her to ?le a complaint
. with the Director of Legislative Administration, which Rep. John Doe #42 relayed to lobbyist John
Doe #48. A few days before January 28, 2016, Rep. John Doe #42 met with John Doc #48 and
Jane Doe #30 in his of?ce. Jane Doc #30 told him that Rep. Durham said something inappropriate
and she excused herself but she did not want to ?le a formal complaint. She had not told her
husband and did not want to be on the front page of the neWSpaper. Representative John Doc #42
provided the text messages from January 26, 2016, with lobbyist John Doe #48 to set up a meeting
with Jane Doc #30 and to Jane Doc #30 giving her contact information for Rep. Jane Doc #25.
(Attachment 

Representative Jane Doc #25 recalled that in 2015, Rep. John Doe #42. approached
members of her staff with informatiOn from two females who may have received inappropriate
communications from Rep. Durham. Her staff informed Rep. John Doc #42 that the appropriate
process would involve a fennal complaint filed with the Director of Legislative Administration.
Representative Jane Doe #25 stated that she subsequently approached Rep. John Doc #42 on
January 24 or 25, 2016, and asked if two females who reported receiving the communications from
Rep. Durham would be willing to ?le a formal complaint and offered to contact the females to
discuss hisconduct. Representative John Doe #42 relayed the information to Jane Doc #3 0, who

 

- ?7 This statement is inconsistent with what John Doc #43 reported to Rep. John Doc #42 in 2015 words to the
effect of, ?you need to do something for me if i do something for you?) and what Jane Doc #30 reported to our Of?ce
in her interview for your bill but I?m going to expect something in return?). John Doe #48?3 recollection of the
second part of the statement, ?you may want some of this pocket candy,? may be a con?ation of his memory of Jane
Doe #3 0?3 report with another statement attributed to Rep. Durham during an incident involving lobbyist Jane Doe #9
(?You don?t want those. I?ve got this,? referring to a piece of candy from Rep. Durham?s pocket). Several witnesscs
we interviewed had heard about the ?Pants Candy? incident. (See account of Jane Doe p. 43 

24

declined to ?le a formal complaint. Representative Jane Doe #25 provided our Office with screen
shots or the text Jane Doc #30 sent her on January 28, 2016, at 12:55 pm. (Attachment 

Jane Doe #31 Lobbyist

Jane Doc #31, a former legislative director for a state agency, recalled having email contact
with Rep. Durham during his first session in 2013, an exchange which she deseribed as
professional. During the 2014 Session, she spoke with every House member about a bill that
affected her agency. Representative Durham became very friendly toward her and on one occasion
asked her to come by his of?ce for a minute around 4:30 or 5:00 pm. While she was in his of?ce,
Rep. Durham offered her beer but she declined. She was in Rep. Durham?s of?ce about 5?10
minutes and was uncomfortable at what'she perceived as him ?irting. He said something like,
?You gotta go have a drink with me.? This incident affected her willingness to meet with him
alone. She either skipped him altogether when lobbying legislators during the 2014 Session or
dropped literature off at his office. She emailed him to maintain some distance between them. At 
some point, they became friends on Facebook. She continued to drop off materials to Rep.
Durham?s assistant during the 2015 Session, and she stated that Rep. Durham was very friendly
and very persistent in asking to have drinks with her. However, Jane Doe #31 would not meet
with him alone.

In July 2015, Jane Doe #31 decided to leave her employment with the State and emailed
every legislator and assistant with her personal cell phone number and email address to let them
know she would be glad to work with them in the future. Her employment ended in October 2015.
She had not heard ?om Rep. Durham for some time when she received a private Facebook message
from him at 11:25 pm. on October 9, 2015, asking ?You up?? She asked ?What?s up?? and he.
responded ?You left us.? She replied, know. It makes me sad but maybe I?ll be back around!?
Representative Durham then asked, still want drinks if you were half serious.? She replied,
I ?Absolutely! Don?t worry?I?ll be back around! Was at the plaza today for a while. . . 
- Representative Durham responded, ?Did we say ?ying saucer or did 1 ever get that far? Ha.? Her
reply was ?Nope. In [sic] not even sure where that is! Sold my house so I?m busy moving this
weekend and most of next week but maybe the week after?? (Attachment at 
Representative Durham mentioned his title company and texted, ?Love to. Let?s get it on the
calendar. Where are you moving?? When she told him she was renting an apartment for a while,
Rep. Durham?sreplied, ?Hm I do have beer in the office.? (Id. at Jane Doe #31 told him to
go to bed and she would call next week but he continued the conversation. He gave her his phone
number ,and said, must admit I?m intrigued tho . . . by why you left. I wanted drinks with you
to tell you something anyway.? (Id. at 9-11.) When she told him that there are lots of good people
still at her old department and that he would be in good hands, he replied, ?But I?m more concerned
about you.? She responded that she was fine, to book the drinks, To that, Rep.
Durham answered, ?You?re cold as ice.? Her reply was, ?Now that was just mean! In [sic] not.
Would just rather talk in person.? He then messaged, ?1 can do phone for a minute.? Jane Doc
#31 told him that it was not a good time to talk. He then texted, ?Ha ok. Fill in the blanks then.?
(Id. at 12?15.) Jane Doc #31 later texted her friend in December 2015 that she used moving as an
excuse for not being available for drinks with Rep. Durham. (See id. at 16-19.)

25

Jane Doc #31 felt the messages were ?terribly inappropriate? based on the time of night
and the personal nature of them. It appeared to her Rep. Durham was trying to see how far he
could get with her and she kept trying to change the subject during the exchange. However, she
did not feei she could tell him to leave her alone because she was looking for ajob at the time and
did not want to be considered untrustworthy by legislators. She explained that legislators would
fear that their friendliness would be misconstrued and would not trust someone who complained.
Jane Doc #31 stated that Rep. Durham?s behavior ?creeped me on His messages also surprised
her because she is much older than he and is a grandmother. She said Rep. Durham. is now cold
to her when she says Jane Doe #31 provided the Of?ce with screen shots of Facebook
messages from Rep. Durham from October 9, 2015, and the text message exchange with her friend
on December 1-2, 2015. 

Jane Doe 18 Lobbyist

Jane Doc #18 met Rep. Durham during the 2013 Session when she was introduced to
legislators by other members of her lobbying ?rm. Her ?rm will not send her to meet alone with
Rep. Durham. When she meets with him, at least one other member of her ?rm is present. She
stated that Rep. Durham ?stares at year chest when you are talking to him.? During the 2015
Session, Rep. Durham was the sponsor of a bill one of the ?rm?s clients was interested in. She 
recalled being in his of?ce for meetings on as many as seven occasions and stated, ?He?s [Durham]
never looked at my face.? 

Jane Doc #18 related another incident in 2015 that occurred during a committee meeting.
Representative Durham was present and sitting up front, perhaps presenting a bill. She suddenly
received an unsolicited text message from a cell phone number she did not recognize saying,
?What?s up?? She. showed it to the ?rm member sitting with her, who checked his phone and
determined it was Rep. Durham?s number. She thought it was weird, presumptuous, and overly
familiar because she and Rep. Durham were not friends and had no relationship that would have
justi?ed such a communication from him. She explained that, although many legislators have her
cell phone number, ?Legislators don?t do that.? - She stated that no one wants to offend a legislator
by not responding, but in this instance, there was nothing that would have made her respond. The
message gave her a strange feeling that he was staring at her in the committee room. She deleted
the text.? She told her husband, who thought Rep. Durham may have been ?hitting? on her.

Jane Doc #52 - Lobbyist

Jane Doe #52 is a former intern and research analyst who became a lobbyist in July 2011.

During Rep. Durham?s ?rst legislative session in 2013, she did not ?nd her initial dealings with
him to be offensive. However, she observed that as he became in?uential as a freshmen leader
and got more power, his interaction with her changed. After her firm was instrumental in defeating
a bill in committee during the 2013- Session, she and her partner stopped by Rep. Durham?s of?ce.
He complimented them on a masterful job of killing the bill and said to Jane Doc #52, ?Especially
you.? He commented on her clothes and how ?good looking? she was. Jane Doc #52 stated this
made her uncomfortable.

26

On January 12-13, 2016, Jane Doe #52?s firm had' a reception. at the War Memorial
Auditorium. Representative Durham stopped her as she passed his table and said, ?You?re doing
something different. Are you working out? Keep doing what you?re doing. It?s working for you.?
She stated Rep. Durham looked her up and down and looked at her below the neck. This made
her uncomfortable. A few days later, she dropped off some bill language by his office and had a
short text?and email exchange with him about it. He called her to ask what he was supposed to do
with the bill and again made the same remarks about her appearance that he made at the reception
as set forth above. She stated she politely thanked him. The number she had for Rep. Durham
was .

 

As a result of her interactions witthep. Durham, Jane Doc #52 told her boss that she will
not go into his of?ce to- lobby in the future. She thought he was extremely hold to make such
comments to her with everyone talking about his conduct toward females. She explained that Rep.
Durham?s behavior is different than what she has experienced with other legislators.

ane Doe #66 - Fem-ale Associated with the Legislature

Jane Doe #66 Was associated with the Legislature in 2014. She met Rep. Durham before ..
the 2014 primary and saw him again at the end of 2014 at a Caucus ?mdraiser. During the 2015
Session, Jane Doc #66 became friends with a group of legislators, including Rep. Durham, who
socialized on a regular basis.

One night, Rep. Durham texted Jane Doc #66 while she was in Nashville with her husband.
On another occasion, Jane Dec #66 went to dinner with Rep. Durham and a group of legislators.
When she left to go back to her residence, Rep. Durham texted her to ask where she was, that he
needed to talk to her. He asked her to meet him outside her residence, which she did. Jane Doe
#66 stated when Rep. Durham arrived, he told her that he had a crush on her. This made her very -
uncomfortable, and she did not know what to do. She told Rep. Durham she was happily married,
but he laughed and said he was, too. He told her he wanted to warn her that she was going to have
to help him deal with that when they were around each other. Jane Doe #66 said it was obvious .
Rep. Durham was ?hitting on? her. i 

The next day, Jane Doe #66 saw Rep. Durham talking to another member when he sent her
a text message stating something to the effect of, ?Your smile gave me chills.? The following
weekend, Jane Doc #66 was at home with her husband on a Friday or Saturday evening when she
received a text message from Rep. Durham. She Stated the text message said something about her
being beautiful or wanting to see or talk to her. She deleted the texts. She then blocked Durham?s
number and talked to her ?iend Rep. Jane Doc #65, who advised her, ?Girl, you need to tell him
to leave you alone and protect your marriage.? .

Toward the end of the 2015 Session, Jane Doc #66 went to dinner with Rep. Durham and
a group of legislators. Representative Durham told Jane Doc #66 that he had tried to contact her
all week about an important meeting but could not get in touch with her. When she told him she'
blocked his number, he appeared offended and gave her the impression that he thought it was silly.
Through the week, Rep. Durham told her that he just wanted them to be friends, so she decided to
unblock his number. She said she felt she needed to be able to get information from Rep. Durham,

27

whose role as a House leader gave him access to information that others did not have. Jane Doc
#66 said that she only intended to be friends with Rep. Durham but that he pursued her. She no
longer wants to be associated with the Legislature.

The following additional information was provided to the Office that is relevant to Jane
Doe #66?3 account:

Representative Jane Doc #65 knew Rep. Durham socially. Near the end of the 2015
Session, a female associated withthe Legislature, Jane Doe #66, was upset and con?ded in Rep.
Jane Doc #65 that Rep. Durham was sending her text messages on weekends and all hours of the
night and had ?begged? to come up and stay with her one night at her residence. Jane Doc #66
was married. Representative Jane Doe #65 advised her to block Rep.? Durham?s phone number
and protect her marriage.

In his interview, John Doc #51 stated that he had a phone conversation with Jane Doc #66
late in the 2015 Session during which she asked his advice about how to handle Rep. Durham?s
advances. She told him that she had dinner with Rep. Durham and others and when she was
leaving, Rep. Durham either told her or tested her to stay a little longer. She stayed for a while
longer. After she left the second time, Rep. Durham called her and told her he wanted to talk to -
her. Jane Doc #66 met him outside her residence, and Rep. Durham told her he thought highly of
her and gave her the impression he was making a move on her. She told Rep. Durham she was
happily married. She wanted to know what to do because she did not want it to happen again.
John Doc #51 told her she should block Rep. Durham?s number and avoid socializing with him.
Several months later, she told John Doc #51 that she previously blocked Rep. Durham?s phone
number but unblocked it after he tried to send her a text message about an important meeting.

Representative Jane Due #65 - Witness

Representative Jane Doc #65 was close to Rep. Durham, and she and other members often
socialized together after he was elected. She stated her relationship with Rep. Durham changed
during the 2015 Session due to her knowledge of inappropriate behavior by him which she did not
want to be associated with. She noticed that Durham?s drinking increased in 2015 and observed
changes in his temperament and appearance. She stated she has seen Rep. Durham drinking at
Legislative Plaza many times, sometimes during the day. Within a week of receiving the report of
Rep. Durham?s behavior from Jane Doe-#66 above, Rep. Jane Doe #65 attended a political event
with a ?married ?iend? ?'om her home district, whom she refused to name. A group of eight to
ten people from the event went to a Nashville restaurant for aprivately funded ?meet and greet?
for the Republican Party. Jane Doe #65 stated Rep. Durham was drinking and ended up sitting
beside her ?married friend.? Representative Jane Doe #65 observed him ??irting hard? with her
friend. The friend told Rep. Jane Doc #65 that Rep. Durham asked her to go have drinks with him
but she declined. Representative Jane Doc #65 stated she has since ?parted ways? with Rep.
Durham. She reported that during the 2016 Session Rep.?Durham told a group of members, in
which she was included, that all the allegations against him are false.

28

VII.
REPRESENTATIVE CONDUCT DURING NOVEIVIBER 2012-2014

The investigation revealed that Rep. Durham has a history of similar conduct in previous
sessions toward female legislative staff, lobbyists, and others with whom he has interacted in his
position as a state representative. The evidence obtained in the following interviews illustrates
that Rep. Durham?s aforementioned conduct was not limited to the 2015~2016 session of the
General Assembly.

Jane Doe #24 ??Legislative Staff

Jane Doc #24 first met Rep. Durham early in the 2013 Session when she worked as a
legislative assistant for Rep. Jane Doe #33, with whom he was close ?iends. The ?rst incident she
described involving Rep. Durham was around February 2013 when he invited her to have drinks
with him and Rep. Jane Doe #33 in her of?ce at the end of the day. According to Jane Doc #24, 
Rep. Jane Doc #33 appeared surprised and annoyed that Rep.?Durham invited her. When the
conversation between Rep. Jane Doc #33 and Rep. Durham turned to a discussion of breast
implants, he looked at Jane Doe #24 below the neck, nodded toward her, and said, ?Some people 
don?t need them.? Representative Durham?s comment made Jane Doc #24 feel uncomfortable,
but she did not say anything because she thought that anyone standing up to a legislator would be
ridiculed and that doing so could jeopardize her hopes for a higher staff position at the Legislature.
'She said she did not want to be ?that girl,? meaning one who rocks the boat or complains about a
legislator. She stayed in Rep. Jane Doe #33 ?3 office having drinks for about 30 to 40 minutes and
left. After that evening, Rep. Durham would often stop by Jane Doe #24?5 of?ce to visit her,
asking ?What do you do for fun?? and about her personal life. - They discussed where she lived.
At some point, he gave her his cell phone number, telling Jane Doc #24 that it was just in case
Rep. Jane Doc #33 needed to get in touch with him.

Shortly thereafter, Rep. Durham invited ane-Doe #24 to get drinks after work at the Tin
Roof. She assumed she was meeting him with a group because early in the session, groups often
met for drinks at Fleet Street and other places. She was ?attered that Rep. Durham invited her,
but when she arrived around 7 or 8 she was surprised that he was alone. Representative 
Durham made an excuse why no one else was there. They had drinks and talked. Representative
Durham eventually moved next to her in the booth, saying he could not hear her. He put his arm
around her and pulled her close while talking to her. He told her she was attractive, made
comments about the tank top underneath a see-through top and the blue jeans she had on and was
staring at her up and down. Jane Doe #24 stated that it was obvious he wanted to get her alone. 
She was worried that someone might see them and that Rep. Jane Doc #33 would be displeased.
When she got up to leave after about an hour, Rep. Durham offered to walk her home.

Once at her apartment building, Rep. Durham asked her if he could come inside, but Jane 
Doe #24 told?him no. He put his hand on her back while she got her key out, walked her to her
door, and leaned in and kissed her. She said she was caught off-guard and reminded him, ?You?re
married? and recalled saying something like, ?This is not going to happen.? Representative
Durham laughed and then left. After this incident, Rep. Durham texted Jane Doe #24 early before

29

work and late at night (1:00 am. or so) five or six times asking if he could come over to her
apartment. He sometimes stopped by and sometimes called on his way home but mainly asked
. her to let him come over after events. She kept making excuses or told him she was busy.

She recalled another incident during the session when Rep. Durham parked in the lot across
the street from around 8 pm. and asked Jane Doc #24 to stop by on her way home ?om
an evening out with friends to say She got into his car, which she described as a dark Jeep, -
for about 15 minutes. She described him as ?irty and leaning in close to her. She accidentally
knocked some of his campaignstickers onto the ?oor, and he stuck one on her leg and said, ?You
look pretty hot with my sticker on.? She stated he kissed her on the neck but she did not kiss him
back. -

Jane Doc #24 stated she was ?super uncomfortable? with the whole situation and thought
it was unusually bold for a married legislator to be seen with a single girl out in public. She stated
that she told her ?iend John Doc #15 about the Tin Roof incident but did not think she told him 
what happened in the car. She felt ?attered by Rep. Durham?s attention but knew?he was married
and was not contemplating an affair with him. At the end of the 2013 Session, she heard from
another ?'iend at Fleet Street that Rep. Durham had also asked her to meet him. After learning
this, she thought she established appropriate distance with Rep. Durham. . 

A few weeks before the end of the 2013 Session, Rep. Jane Doc #33 found out Jane Doe

#24 and Rep. Durham had been communicating and ?hanging out.? When the session ended,
Human Resources immediately noti?ed Jane Doc #24 that Rep. Jane Doe #33 wanted her
reassigned. She said she subsequently received a letter of good standing from Human Resources
and interviewed for other staff positions with the Legislature but was never hired. She heard ?ora
legislative staff member John Doc #32 that Rep. Jane Doc #33 did not speak well of her to other
members. As a result, she said she was afraid to make Rep. Durham mad, thinking he would take
Rep. Jane Doc #33 ?3 side against her since they were close friends.

Jane Doe #24 stated Rep. Durham continued to periodically text her even after she was let
go from her job at the Legislature asking her _?to hang out.? She remembered text messages in
April after the 2013 Session in which Rep. Durham asked her to meet, which she assumed meant
alone. He also called her once around 9 or 10- at night intoxicated wanting to come over. On one
occasion, to put him off, Jane Doc #24 invited him to come to a bar, the Standard, where she was
with a group. On another occasion, Rep, Durham texted Jane Dec #24 asking her if she wanted to
come out, and when she told him no, he texted ?pics?? She assumed he meant naked pictures
because he had access to regular pictures of her on Facebook. The texts stopped in July or August
2013 with the exception of a ?Happy Thanksgiving? in the fall. -

Jane Doc #24 said she is ashamed that she had allowed things with Rep. Durham to go on
for so long and put up with things to stay in his ?good graces.? She eventually found a position as
an executive assistant in February 2014 with 'a private company. Jane Doc #24 wanted to be a
lobbyist from the time she was in high school but no longer wants to do so after her encounter with
Rep. Durham. She stated ?it?s all gone.? 

30

The following additional information was provided to the Office that is relevant to Jane
Doe #24?3 account:

Legislative staff member John Doe #15 was a good friend and con?dant of Jane Doc #24
and would sometimes stop by her of?ce to visit. He stated that he witnessed Rep. Durham" making
advances toward'Jane Doc #24 in her office on several occasions. The advances included innuendo
of a sexual nature, sexually suggestive comments, and what he referred to as ?strong, strong
?irting.? He recalled that Rep. Durham would sit in Jane Doe #24?5 of?ce for 30 to 40 minutes,
sometimes with the door closed. John Doe #15 said legislators normally do not go into a staff?s
office like that. He was also aware that there were ?equent text messages between Jane Doc #24
and Rep. Durham. She told John Doe #15 that the situation made her uncomfortable and her job
was preCarious because there were times Rep. Jane Doc #33, a close friend of Rep. Durham?s and
Jane Doe #24?3 boss, saw him making advances and reacted very negatively. John Doc #15 saw
some of the text messages and Facebook messages ?rom Rep. Durham that were sent at 2 or 3 am.
saying things like, ?Why don?t you come over?? or ?Can I come over?? He remembered one
message from Rep. Durham asking to come over one morning before work that said. something
like, ?I?ll bring you breakfast in bed.? lt-w'as clear to him that Rep. Durham wanted sex ?om Jane 
Doc #24 but does not believe she had sex with. him. He was surprised that Rep. Durham was so
forward. The texting continued throughout the 2013 Session and some after the session. Jane Doe 
#24 told him about one occasion when she met Rep. Durham at the Tin Roof. She told him that
Rep. Durham portrayed the meeting as related to legislative business, but when she arrived, that
was not the case. She and Rep. Durham ended up in either his or her car and some type of physical
contact occurred. Jane Doc #24 told him the contact did not go beyond kissing. She also told him
that Rep. Durham had asked her for pictures, which she thought meant pictures of a sexual nature.
John Doe #15 stated that Jane Doc #24 went along with Rep. Durham because she felt ?trapped,?
and ?stuck in- the middle? because she was working for Rep. Durham?s close ?iend
and he was a legislator while she was a staff member. John Doe #15 talked to Rep. Durham about
his behavior three or four times. The ?rst occurred early in the 2013 Session, when John Doc #15
let Rep. Durham know how awkward Jane Doe #24 felt about his advances and gave him a ?heads
up? that people were talking about it. Representative Durham acted as though he would be care?il
about his behavior. each time they talked but never changed his behavior toward Jane Doe #15.

During the 2013 Session, John Doc #32 was on staff at the Legislature. Late in the session,
Jane Doe #24 told him that Rep. Durham was very flirtatious toward her.

Jane Doc #12 Legislative Staff

Jane Doc #12 was working in the HouseClerk?s office when Rep. Durham approached her
in a subcommittee meeting in February 2013 and asked for her business card. When she informed
him that clerks do not get business cards, he asked that she text him her information, which she
did. Although legislators do not typically get her information, she thought nothing of it at the time.
Representative Durham talked with her in other subcommittee meetings and noticed her
engagement ring. Her initial impression was that he was cute, ?mny, stupid, and a bit ?irty but
not ?over the top.? However, through the spring, she had received enough texts from him in which
the tone did not feel right that she had an ?uh oh? feeling. There were invitations for drinks with
him. She stated it was not unusual for legislators to invite groups to go out, but Rep. Durham?s

31

oneuon-one suggestions were. She felt that he was being persistent in trying to get her alone.
Every time she made an excuse, he would come back with another suggestion. She continued to
make excuses. Jane Doc #12 got a new cell phone in June 2013 and no longer has the cell phone
with these early text messages on it.

Toward the end of the 2013 Session, Jane Doc #12 was locking for another position, and
on June 28 and July 2, 2013, Rep. Durham texted to let her know that Rep. Jane Doe #33 was
interviewing to replace an employee she ?red (Jane Doc #24) and that Rep. John Doe #55?5
assistant was leaving; (Attachment at 1, 8.) Interspersed were texts in which Rep. Durham
was arranging to have drinks with Jane Doc #12 and texted, ?When do you get off,? ?What bars 
are close to you?? (Id. at 4-5.) They talked about plans, but she always made excuses. For
example, on July 1, 2013, she sent him a text ?Can we push drinks back a day? My dad is in town
- from Florida and asked if we could do something,? and on July 2, ?Ok that?s probably best [a rain
check] I need to have some family convos about which job I?m going to take.? (Id. at 1, 5.)

Representative Durham called Jane Doc #12 at home sometime at the end Of or after the
2013 Session and again asked her to have a drink with him. She told him it might not be 
appropriate and she was not getting back out. She reminded Rep. Durham that he was married and
she was engaged and pulled ?the Church of Christ car on him. He replied, ?Welcome to Capitol 
Hill.? Jane Doc #12- saw Rep. Durham with his wife at ?anctions and was polite but only engaged
his wife in conversation. -

In September 2013, she joined Rep. John Doc #55 ?5 staff. She had very little contact with
. Rep._Durham during the 2014 Session. On February 24, 2014, Rep. Durham texted, ?Havent [sic]
forgotten you owe me a drink! 1? (Id. at 11-12.) On September 3, 2014, she received a text from
Rep. Durham before work at 8:18 am. saying, ?Tell [Rep John Doc #55] I?m stealing you? and
then at 8:21 am. ?The young, attractive assistant is a horrible cliche anyway.? (Id. at 14.) She
said that she did not formally complain but showed the texts to Rep. John Doc #55 and told him
that if she got one more text, she was going to the Speaker of the House. She showed them to her
husband as well. A couple of months later, Rep. Durham came off an elevator as Jane Doc #12
and Rep. John Doc #55 were getting on. He turned and said, ?The young hot assistant is such a -
cliche? as the doors closed. She stated Rep. Durham appeared to be under the in?uence of
something. She described his eyes as being ?sleepy? and his face red. She thinks he is a ?creep? .
and warns new interns in her of?ce to stay away from him. She does not feel the need to do this
with any other legislator. She stated Rep. Durham has not acknowledged her presence since the
news stories with the allegations of women appeared in January 2016.

  

Doc #12 provided screen shots of text messages from number, 
 dated June 28, 2013, through September 3, 2014. She no longer has the cell phone w1th
older texts on it.

    

. The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #12?5 account: -

Representative John Doc #55 stated that in late 2014 or early 2015, Jane Doc #12 reported
to him that Rep. Durham sent her a text message that made her uncomfortable. John Doe #55 ?s

32

recollection of it was that Rep. Durham said she was a sexy assistant and needed to come work for
him. He encouraged her to show the text message to her husband and determine what she wanted
to do about it. She told him that she did not want it to happen again but if it did, she wanted to
report it. Subsequently, Rep. John Doc #55 and Jane Doe #12 encountered Rep. Durham at an
elevator in Legislative Plaza and Rep. Durham made a comment to Jane Doe #12 that caused her
to say, ?He?s a creep,? after Rep. Durham left. Representative John Doe #55 could not remember
the exact statement he made. 

Legislative staff member Jane Doe #39 stated that Jane Doe #12 told her that when she
worked in the Clerk?s Of?ce, Rep. Durham asked for her phone number and began texting her.
She said that clerks do not give their numbers to members but Rep. Durham asked for Jane Doe
#12?s number, saying it was in case he needed to get in touch with her. Jane Doc #12 told Jane
Doe #39 that Rep. Durham?s texts made her uncomfortable and that she told him at some point-
that she was getting married and did not want to receive his texts. Jane Doc #12 told her that Rep.
Durham?s response was, ?Welcome to the General Assembly.? Jane Doe #39 did not see the texts.
She stated that this type?of behavior is not normal for legislators in her experience.

In her interview, legislative staff member Jane Doc #20 recalled a conversation she had
with Jane Doe #12 in approximately September 2015 in which Jane Doc #12 told her that Rep.
Durham had sent her text messages which. started out appearing to be innocent and escalated to
being inappropriate. These messages were sent in the evening after work. Jane Doe #20 did not
see the text messages. Jane Doc #12 told her that she reported Rep. Durham?s behavior to Rep.
John Doe #55 and to her husband, who was angry about the messages. Jane Doe #12 said she told
Rep. Durham that the texts were inappropriate and he needed to stop sending them. 

Lobbyist Jane Doc #52 recalled Jane Doe #12 telling her that Rep. Durham did something
that made her feel uncomfortable. She thought Jane Doe #12 also told her boss. 

Jane Due #38 - 20?Year?Old College Studenthol-itical Worker

While working for a candidate for State Senate, Jane Doe #38 met Rep. Durham in May or
June 2014 at a political fundraiser for a Dickson County mayoral candidate. At that time, she had
a ?very professional? conversation with Durham and Rep. Jane Doe #3 whom she already knew.
Representative Durham told her that he eventually planned to run for Congress and wanted her to
work on his campaign. At the time, Jane Doc #38 was 20 years old and had just ?nished her junior
year in college. During the conversatidn, Rep. Durham gave Jane Doe #38 his business card and
asked her to text him so he would have her cell number for future reference. She texted Rep.
Durham something to the effect of ?Hi, this is [Jane Doe #3 

That same day, on her way to another meeting from. the fimdraiser, she received a text
message from Rep. Durham saying, ?Call me.? When she did so around 7 :30?8:00 he said
he wanted to get together with her because he did not feel they had been able to talk long enough
at the ?mdraiser. She suggested they meet at the ?Relay for Life? event at Logan?s Restaurant,
which she understood Rep. Jane Doc #33 would attend. However, Rep. Durham suggested they
should meet at another location, and they agreed on O?Charley?s Restaurant in Dickson. Jane Doc
#38 met Rep. Durham for dinner around 7:30 or 8:00 and the two had what she described as

33

a ?very professional? conversation about politics. She stayed about an hour, and Rep. Durham
gave her a friendly hug when she left. 

The following day Jane Doe #38 received a text message from Rep. Durham asking to meet
again soon to talk more. A week later, the two exchanged text messages about political events,
and about two weeks later, Rep. Durham sent another invitation asking if they could meet. Jane
Doc #38 was working on an election campaign in Robertson County at the time and suggested
they meet at Logan?s Restaurant in Cool Springs on her way home for the weekend. She stated
she knew Rep. Durham was married but?felt their interactions had been professional. The two had
dinner at Logan?s Restaurant discussing politics, after which Rep. Durham hugged Jane Doc #38
goodbye and the two left separately. Jane Doe #38 recalled being at work later that week when
she and Rep. Durham exchanged text messages about some political issues. During the course of
the exchange, she mentioned going on a date with someone, and Rep. Durham?s texts became
??irty? at that point. He texted her something to the effect, of think you know what I?m talking
about. You know I really like you.? Upon her return to Robertson County, she received a phone
call from Rep. Durham during which he told Jane Doe #38 his marriage was not going to work out
and that he was getting a divorce because his wife did not want the same things he did. At the

time, Jane Doe #38 thought it was ?cool? hanging out with a legislator.

The next night, which Jane Doc #38 placed in June 2014, Rep. Durham asked her to meet
him and ?hang out? in his legislative of?ce. She parked near Legislative Plaza, and he drove her
in his car to the Plaza. Representative Durham brought a cooler of beer, and the two went to his
office and drank the beer he provided and talked. Jane Doe #38 was under 21 years of age at the
time. She stated that at first, Rep. Durham sat behind his desk and she was in a chair in front of
the desk. He eventually moved around and sat on the desk in front of her. In between some
discussion of business and other ?banter,? Rep. Durham made ?attering comments about her
appearance, which indicated to Jane Doc #38 that he liked her. She stated that Rep. Durham
suggested they move into an adjoining of?ce to some couches, which they did. He told her that
he wanted to kiss her, and the two kissed and had sexual intercourse. Afterward, they talked and
watched a baseball game in his of?ce, during which time Rep. Durham told her, better be Careful
or I could end up falling for you.? About 45 minutes later, he drove her back to her car.

After the incident, Jane Doe #38 texted Rep. Durham to tell him she felt ?sick? about it.
He responded that he wanted a positive experience for her and it was ?no big deal.? She said the
texts between them became more like ?friend? texts, and Rep. Durham said that'he Wanted to see
her again and ?hang out.? 

In mid?summer 2014, Jane Doe #38 went to Washington, DC. for an internship. She stated
while in Washington, she and Rep. Durham exchanged text messages. She reported receiving text
messages sometimes late at night, telling her miss you,? adore you,? and like you.?
Representative Durham told her he wanted to come see her in Washington and was trying to ?nd
a conference or some arrangement to come visit. Although he did not visit her while she was there,
the two agreed to ?hang out? upon her return. In August 2014, a week after Jane Doc #38 returned
from Washington, D.C., Rep. Durham sent her a text message asking her to come ?hang out? at
his house. She stated the two had sexual intercourse while at his home. There was no mention of .
Rep. Durham?s wife. -

34

Following the encounter with Rep. Durham at his home in August 2014, Jane Doe #38
attended an Americans for Prosperity Conference and heard from people who knew Rep.'Durham
that he was still married and was ??irty.? She returned to college in the fall, and the two had little
contact between then and late 2014. She saw Durham with his wife at a political car'npaign
fundraiser in November 2014 and recalled speaking to them. Eventually, Rep. Durham asked to
see her again and she agreed they could ?hang out.? -

The day'Rep. Durham was elected Majority Party Whip, he saw Jane Doe #38 at the Plaza;
he asked if she would be around later, and said that he would text her. Between 9:00 and 10:00
pm, Rep. Durham texted, ?1 would like to see you naked around midnight.? Jane Doe #38 stated
she went to Rep. Durham?s legislative of?ce at midnight and he was intoxicated. The two had
sexual contact. 

During the time they were communicating, Jane Doc #38 said she received text messages
from Rep. Durham as late as 1:30 and on one occasion, he asked her to send him a picture.
She said she assumed he wanted a nude picture and did not send one. She recalled going to Rep.
Durham?s house with some other members on another occasion after a State Republican Executive
Committee Meeting in early April 2015. As late as April or May 2015, Rep. Durham was still
sending her late night texts, usually after she had already gone to bed, such like you,? or ?You 
know-I adore you,? but by this time, Jane Doe #3 8 had seen him together with his wife at'several
functions. When she responded to Rep. Durham?s texts by talking about how nice his wife seemed
and told him to leave her alone, Rep. Durham replied with something like ?Whoa.? She blocked
Durham?s number and the two have not spoken since. 

Jane Doe #38 was visibly emotional durin the interview and cried when talking about her
sexual encounters with Rep. Durham. She stated she had consideredworking for the Legislature
at one time but after her experience with Rep. Durham, she no longer has any interest. She stated
that she was very stupid and naive and ?politics was very new to me.? She previously deleted the
text messages ?om Rep. Durham.

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #38?s account:

During his interview, John Doe #15 stated that in mid-2015, he saw text messages ?'om
Rep. Durham to Jane Doc #38, who was?20 or 21 years old at the time, sent during the 2015
Session. They were similar to the sexually suggestive messages Jane Doc #24 received in 2013-,
which he also saw. He explained that Jane Doc #3 8 attended many of the legislative receptions in
her position and was even more uncomfortable with the texts than Jane Doe #24 because she said
she had just met Rep. Durham. She told John Doe #15 that she ?nally told Rep. Durham to leave
her alone and the texts stopped.

Jane Doc #1 - Lobbyist
Jane Doc #1 was a lobbyist at the time of the incidents involving Rep. Durham. She was .

introduced to him in December 2012 while attending a lobbyists? dinner at the American
Legislative Exchange Council Conference in Washington, D.C., but they did not taik.

35

After attending another event, she began making arrangements to return to her hotel in Alexandria,
Virginia. On the way, she spotted a group of Tennessee freshman legislators, which included Rep.
Durham, in a bar and decided to introduce herself. Seated at the tablewere Rep. Jane Doe #65,
whom she knew, Rep. Jane Doe #33, and another member. She joined their conversation, passed
out her business card, and subsequently left in a cab. While in the cab, she looked at her phone
and discovered she had two or three text messages from Rep. Durham to the effect of, ?Hey, this
is Jeremy Durham. Don't you want to come outside? We can talk out here. Why aren't you
answerng my texts?? She stated the messages were so odd that she did not respond and felt
uncomfortable. When she awoke the next morning, she saw texts from Rep. Durham sent at
approximately 2:30 in 3:00 am. asking such things as, ?Where are you? Are you staying at the
hotel? What are you doing?? Jane Doc #1 said she was caught off~guard and felt ?creeped ou 
and ?uncomfortable? by the unsolicited texts and could think of nothing that warranted the texts.
This was not common behavior for legislators at that time. She responded something like, ?Sorry
imissed you. Flying to Nevada.? That day, she left the conference and travelled to Las Vegas to
watch her friend Jane Doe #47 run a marathon. While in Las Vegas, she showed Jane Doe #47
the text messages Rep. Durham sent her. 

Jane Doe #1 received additional text messages from Rep. Durham in April 2013 after she
attended a fish fry in Printer?s Alley hosted by Jane Doc #47 for legislators and their staff. She
did not notice Rep. Durham at the event. She stated, however, after leaving the event and going
with friends to a nearby bar called Miss Kelly?s, she began receiving texts from Rep. Durham such
as ?Where did you go?. . . I saw you? and ?You look really hot in that skirt you are wearing.? an?e
Doe #1 stated she was with two friends who disliked Rep. Durham and this became the topic of a
group discussion. Jane Doc #47 shared the texts with her ?iends, who agreed that ?this guy is
sic She responded to Rep. Durham?s texts by taking a group picture with her two ?iends and
sending it to him. Jane Doe #1 stated he began sending multiple texts asking, ?Who else is
there . . . What are you saying?? and don't like this at all.? Jane Doe #1 said she felt disgusted
and ?creepy? that he was watching her when she gave him no reason to do so. She did not respond
and did not hear ?om'him again.

Jane Doe #1 recalled passing out lobbying materials at a Republican Caucus ?mdraiser in'
December 201318 with fellow lobbyist Jane Doe #46 and then going with a group to Morton?s
Steakhouse afterward. She recalled Rep. Durham and his wife were there, as well as legislative
staff member John Doe #41, Rep. Jane Doe #25, Rep. John Doc #55, another member, and other
lobbyists and staff. When Jane Doe #1 arrived, Rep. Durham was having aloud argument with
another member and left the restaurant. Jane Doc #1 showed the texts from Durham to legislative
staff member Jane Doc #39 in Rep. John Doe #55 ?3 presence, but he did not see them. 19 She stated
that lobbyist Jane Doe #46 has also seen the texts.

Because of his behavior, Jane-Doe #1 refused to lobby Rep. Durham on three bills she had
before his committee in the 2014 Session and asked Jane Doc #47 to go in her place. Jane Doc #1

 

?3 Jane Doe #46 and Jane Doc #39 placed this event in December 2012.

19 Jane Doe #39 remembered attending the dinner at Morton?s Steakhouse during which Rep. Durham argued with
another member but did not recall any discussions about'inappropriate text; messages. To preserve con?dentiality of
witnesses, we did not specifically ask her to recall a conversation with Jane Doe 

36

no longer has the phone she was using at the time and did not keep the text messagesfrom Rep.
Durham. She provided a screen shot of the group picture she sent Rep. Durham from Miss Kelly?s
dated April 13, 2013.

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #l?s account:

In her interview, Jane Doc #47 remembered that Jane Doc #1 came to Las Vegas when she
ran a marathon two or three years ago. She recalled Jane Doe #1 telling her that she had received
inappropriate text messages ?om Rep. Durham. She stated Jane Doc #1 was ?shocked and
appalled? by his text messages.

Lobbyist Jane Doe #46 described Jane Doe #1 as an ?honest, hard workercompany, I?d hire her tomOrrow.? She recalled that Jane Doe #1 showed her text messages from
Rep. Durham that were ?out of line.? She did not remember the exact wording but said when she
read them, she thought ?he is off the charts? and persistent. She recalled Rep. Durham ?rst texted
Jane Doc #1 when she was at an ALEC conference. The texts Jane Doc #46 saw were sent late at
night and in the early morning hours on more than one occasion. She recalled at least three
occasions on which Rep. Durham texted Jane Doe It was clear to her that Rep. Durham was
?hitting on? Jane Doc and she thought he was clearly interested in sex, based on the content
and late hour they were sent. Jane Doc #46 stated the texts bothered Jane Doc #1 greatly and she
would likewise have been bothered by them. She did not recall the exact dates involved. She
recalled being at Morton?s Steakhouse following a Republican Caucus fundraiser with Jane Doe
#1 and a number of legislators and staff, including legislative staff member Jane Doc #39 and Rep.
John Doc #55. Representative Durham had beep/there and had a disagreement with another
legislator. Jane Doe #46 saw Jane Doc #1 shaking her cell phone at Rep. John Doe #55, telling
him about the texts she received from Rep. Durham, and saying, ?[Rep. John Doc you are
going to have to ?x this.? When Rep. Durham was on the State and Local Committee, Jane Doe
#46 knew Jane Doc #1 would not be able to lobby him or be alone with him after receiving the
texts from him. Jane Doc #46 said Jane Doc #1 was stressed about being put in this position and
wondered how she would tell her boss she could not lobby Rep. Durham. Jane Doc #46 decided
she would go in Jane Doe #1 ?5 place but does not remember having to do so. She stated that Rep.
Durham?s text messages put Jane Doc #1 ?fbetween a rock and a hard place.?

Legislative staff member Jane Doe #20 recalled having lunch with Jane Doe #1 in the
summer of 2015 during which Jane Doe #1 disclosed that she had received inappropriate text
messages and possibly some voice mail messages ?'om Rep. Durham at a conference that both
attended. Jane Doe #20 thought the conference was in Las Vegas. She did not see the text
messages but she remembered that Jane Doe #1 was afraid to make a formal report due to the fact
that she was a lobbyist at the time and feared repercussions if she reported. -

I In the interview with legislative staff member John Doc #21, he recalled that early in the
2016 Session following a press conference by the Lieutenant Governor regarding Rep. Durham,
Jane Doc #1 contacted him. She told'him that she first met Rep. Durham at an ALEC conference
in Washington, DC. and gave him a business card. She reported that she immediately began

37

receiving text messages from Rep. Durham late into the night. She asked John Doc #21 to provide
this information to our Of?ce, which he did. - .

Jane Doe #47 - Lobbyist

Jane Doc #47 was a lobbyist when she met Rep. Durham through friends in the summer of
2010 before he was elected to the House. Shortly after she met him, she shrugged off his repeated
attempts to get her to ?hang out with him? at the pool when she knew he was engaged or had a
girl?iend. (Attachment at 1-3.) They became Facebook ?iends at some point after meeting.
After Rep. Durham won the primary in 2012, she met with him for drinks at M. L. Rose on Franklin
Pike to ?build social capital? because she knew she would be working around him at the
Legislature. -

On February 12, 2013, she attended a legislative reception and received what she
considered an inappropriate text message from Rep. Durham afterward saying, ?Nice dress
tonight! (Id. at 4.) She reSponded that she made it herself in an effort to de?ect his comment.
On another occasion on May 6, 2013, she met with Rep. Durham in his of?ce to discuss a bill she
had before his subcommittee. His behavior made her feel like he was ?hitting? on her, but she did
not provide speci?cs. On May 15, 2013, Rep. Durham asked her to meet for drinks with him but
she made excuses for cancelling the plans. She texted him on May 15, 2013, at 11:29 am. to say 
she had allergies and needed a ?rain check.? (Id. at 13?14.) .

On May 14, 2013, Jane Doe #47 sent a text message to Rep. Durham after she noticed, he
was ?present not voting? on one of her bills. He replied, ?Oh yeah that?s unconstitutional. I
honestly didn?t vote no because it was you.? (Id. at 10-1 1.) After the 2013 Session was over, Rep.
Durham sent Jane Doc #47 an unsolicited, private acebook message at 12:06 am. on August 26
asking, ?what?s up with ya?? She tried to de?ect the text with her response and offered to get
drinks next week. He responded, ?like I would ever not pick a date you chose! i mean, i? am the
right wing wacko who sees you bringing union bills into my office yet i still eat out of your hand
for some reason!? (Id. at 15-16.) on October 17, Rep. Durham texted, ?Does this mean we?
reschedule our pool date? Ha!? She replied, ?Hahahaha care?il I?m out here drinking on the golf
course so I better not agree to anything at this time,? to which he responded, ?What if we said a
smaller pool?? She asked, ?Smaller pool?? and he responded, ?Ha! Not sure you?re cool enough
for me to put that in writing!? She replied, was thinking that?s what 11 Were meaning.? (Id. at
2022-.) - When she texted on November 14-, ?I?ll need to bring my {client} I?ll see if he want [sic]
to grab a beer or coffee or fish and we can meet up? to give Rep. Durham a check from her client,
he replied, ?Well half my ideas just got eliminated jk.? (Id. at 23?24.) She received an unsolicited
text from Rep. Durham on March 4, 2014, at 9:30 pm. asking ?you around?? She responded by
saying she was in a client?s office and received no more texts from him after this date. (Id. at 35.)

Jane Doc #47 stated that Rep. Durham was ?irtatious, appeared to have ulterior metives,
and always seemed to be ??shing? to see how she would react to his communications. She stated
that he is ?creepy? and ?weird.? She has not lobbied Rep. Durham since 2014 because his positions
on her client?s bills are known and she avoids him because of his behavior. She said Rep.
Durham?s behavior and private communications are not typical of her experiences with other
legislators, regardless of age. 

38

Jane Doe #2 Lobbyist

Jane Doc #2 had an?encounter with Rep. Durham in August 2013 at the ALEC annual
meeting in Chicago, Illinois, which he attended with his wife. After socializing with the Durhams
at the event, Jane Doe a female friend, and the Durhams planned to have drinks together and
took a cab. Representative Durham had been drinking heavily and appeared intoxicated when all
feur got' in the back of the cab. Representative Durham sat between his wife and Jane Doe 
During the ride, Rep. Durham reached his hand over and began rubbing Jane Doe #2?3 thigh, which
made her uncomfortable and gave her the ?heebie geebies.? She was so uncomfortable that when
the cab stopped, she excused herself and informed Rep. Durham that she and her friend would not
be joining them. The incident in the cab affected Jane Doc #2 to the point that she limits her
interaction with Rep. Durham, and ?bers affected her willingness to meet with him alone in his 
of?ce on legislative business. She said it is generally known among female lobbyists that you do
not want ?to be in Rep. Durham's of?ce alone.

Jane Doc #11 - Lobbyist

Jane Doe #1 i, a lobbyist since 2011, ?rst met Rep. Durham during the 2013 Session'at a
?meet and gree for new legislators. She recalled giving him her business card while in his of?ce 
for a few minutes andrnay have written her cell phone number on the card. Toward the end of the
20 i 3 Session, Jane Doe #11 began ?receiving unsolicited text messages from Rep. Durham asking
her to get a drink or ?Hey, what are you doing?? She had not met with him or lobbied him on
legislation during the session but initially thought the messages were innocuous. The texts were
generally sent after she left Legislative Plaza but not late in the evening. Hewever, she recalled
that on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, she had gone to Fleet Street with friends when she received
another unsolicited text message from Rep. Durham to the effect of ?What are you doing?? She
responded to the message by telling him where she was but did not invite him to join her. A short
time later, he showed up intoxicated at the bar where she was With friends. He talked to Jane Doc
#11 for about 20 minutes while hugging her, standing physically close to her, and staring at her
the whole time. She described his conversation as ?irtatious and not the type of conversation or
interaction that normally occurs betWeen colleagues. After he left, Rep. Durham texted her 
came to see you.? The message made her feel uncomfortable and seemed directly ?irtatious, and
she tried to brush off his comment with something like ?you left quickly ha ha.?

After that, Jane Doc #11 thinks she may have received one more unsolicited text in 2013
from Rep. Durham to the effect of ?What?s up?? She did not hear from Rep..Durham for over a
year until he unexpectedly sent her a private Facebook message a day or two after Christmas 2014
asking, ?Are you around? Come have a drink with me.? When she messaged back that she was
in Chattanooga, he suggested, ?How about when you get back?? Her response was something like
?See you in a few weeks for session.? -

Jane Doc #11 did not hear liom Rep. Durham again until the end of the 2015 Session.
While she was at the Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel bar with friends, she and lobbyist Jane
Doc #28 both received similar text messages ?orn Rep. Durham within a few minutes of each
other asking something like ?Hey, where are you? What are you doing?? The?rnessages were
unexpected" and very strange. She thinks Jane Doc #28 responded and told Rep. Durham where

39

they were, to which he answered, ?Come have a drink in my office.? Within a short time, he
showed up at the bar intoxicated and told them he had been drinking in his of?ce. The group
moved to'some couches to watch a ballgame and Rep. Durham was sitting in a chair. When Jane
Doc #11 went to the restroom, Rep. Durham moved from the chair to the couch beside Jane Doc
#28. According to Jane Doe #11, she and Jane Doe #28 left the bar after Rep. Durham. Jane Doe
#11 no longer has the text messages.

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #1 1?5 account: 

Jane Doe #28 stated in her interview that Jane Doe #11 received unsolicited text messages
from Rep. Durham that were ?hitting on? her, and the two of them were part of a group text ?om
him in 2015 asking if they wanted to come drink beer in his legislative 'of?ce. She stated that they

- did not go and ended up going to Morton?s Steakhouse instead. .

Jane Doe #28 Lobbyist

Jane Doe #28 has no speci?c recollection of lobbying Rep. Durham during the 2013
Session and had very little interaction with him in either the 2014 or 2015 Session. She described
their relationship as ?not close.? She stated that she has received phone calls and text messages .
that were business-related. On several occasions during legislative sessions, she received what
she felt were inappropriate text messages from Rep. Durham, sometimes as late as 11:00 pm. to
midnight, asking ?Where are you?? ?Are you guys out?? or,?Are you downtown?? She did not
respond to these texts. Jane Doe #28 produced a private Facebook message Rep. Durham sent
outside of session on December 8, 2014, at 12:43 am. which stated, ?Pm bored as hell. Lobby
me.? She responded, ?Ha ha.? She also produced another late night private Facebook message at
11:54 pm. which stated, ?Hey you.? Jane Doe #28 stated that these messages were unsolicited
and inappropriate for work colleagues. She felt Rep. Durham was ?hitting on? her or trying to ?irt
with her. Because she knows Rep. Durham?s wife, she thought the late night texts were ?gross.?
She has never received this type of message from any, other legislator. In 2015, she was part of a
group text with Jane Doe #11 in which Rep. Durham invited them to drink beer in his legislative
office. She did not go and went to dinner at Morton?s Steakhouse instead. She believes she
discussed Rep. Durham?s messages with fellow lobbyist John Doc #32 after the December 2014
Facebook messages and asked him to talk to him. Because of Rep.- Durham?s conduct towards
- her, Jane Doe #28 does not lobby Rep. Durham in person by herself.? 

During her interview, Jane Doe #28 permitted us to view and copy verbatim the private
Facebook message referenced above and initially agreed to provide a screen shot of the message.
But she ultimately did not respond to our investigator?s request to obtain screen shots.

 

2" Legislative staff member John Doe #15 stated that he has seen Jane Doc #28 being ?cozy? with Rep. Durham on

several occasions. in her interview, lobbyist Jane Doe #18 stated that during the 2015 Session, she observed Rep.

Durham ?making out in the corner? and engaging in ?aggressive kissing? in the Sheraton Nashville bar with Jane Doe -
#28. When the Office confronted her with the allegation, Jane Doe #28 was visibly uncomfortable and denied any

physical contact with Rep. Durham. Legisiative staff member Jane Doc #12 said that Jane Doc #28 told her the rumors

that she Was ?making out? with Rep. Durham were hurtful.

40

The following'additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #28?3 account:

Jane Doe #1 is a good friend of Jane Due #28. She stated that Jane Doc #28 is a truthful
person and told her that she (Jane Doc #28) also received text messages that she considered
inappropriate, similar to those received by Jane Doe #11 from Rep. Durham. Jane Doc #11 also
related the incident at the Sheraton Hotel bar at the end of the 2015 Session in which both she and
Jane Doc #28 received an unexpected text from Rep. Durham asking where they were, what they
were doing, and to ?come drink in [his] of?ce.?

John Doe #32 stated that Jane Doc #28 told him that she received late night text messages
from Rep. Durham, which he recalled as 10:00 pm. to 5:00 am. Jane Doe #28 said that she
ignored him. John Doe #32 got the impression that the texts were an annoyance and of a personal
and unwanted social nature but not necessarily offensive. They were not business?related. He did
not see the texts and did not remember anyone asking him to- talk to Rep. Durham; however, to
preserve con?dentiality, we did not ask him speci?cally about Jane Doe #28?3 claim to have done
so.

Jane Doc #61 Lobbyist

Jane Doe #61 met Rep. Durham when he ?rst took of?ce in 2013 and had some interaction
with him on various bills because he was the freshman leader. One Sunday during the 2013
session, she was driv' ack to '1 11
?om RBI Durham. 

   

    

       

     

           
      

to have drinks to discuss business ?in a less threat
When he suggested lunch or something else, she agreed but let hirn'know she would be bringing a
colleague. He replied, ?Well [sic] see I have to verify that she?s cool!! I?m trying to elevate our I
relations to a more amiable situation! (Attachment at 

Subsequently, they exchanged several other texts about
with some business information. See id. at 3-7. On Sunda
an Message to Jane Doe #61  3'  
she responded 6 rep -
skipping heathen! No wonder you want Medicaid expanded.? She replied that her grandparents
were almost too fragile to go to church and she did not know whether there was a nursery for her
child but in any event, ?we could?ve gone to the early service and you could have been wrong!?
Representative Durham replied, ?That was one heck of an explanation. i forgot you get paid for

that!! It was your heathen tendencies that gave it away though! 1? (Id. at 7-9.)

    
   
         

In early June 2013, Rep. Durham invited Jane Doe #61 to a fundraiser in Franklin despite
the fact that she could not support him ?nancially; however, she assumed it might be to increase
the ?body count? at the event. Jane Doe #61 met Rep. Durham?s wife at the event. She texted
him that evening to thank him for the introductions. He replied that he was now giving her name
to potential clients and subsequently suggesting that ?This may be an . . Convo.? When

41

she agreed they should talk ?irther in person, he asked, ?Are you around tomorrow? Ijust ask b/c
I?m in Nashville part of he [sic] day. Afternoon/lunch.? (Id. at 10?14.) They set the meeting for
12:30 pm. the next day, June 4, 2013. (See id. at 15-16.)

But when Jane Doc #61 stopped'by his office for the meeting, she said Rep. Durham arrived
late and disheveled and told her that he and his wife had a fight. He began divulging details about.
the fight and his private life, which she thought was inappropriate and gave her the ?ick factor?
because she did not know him personally. Representative Durham let her know during the
conversation that things were not good at home with his wife. The meeting was supposed?to be
about getting referrals for her services, but he spent the whole time discussing his marital problems.
Jane Doe #61 said she tried to steer the conversation back to the purpose of the meeting but was
unsuccessful. She considered the experience ?weird? and ?strange? and wondered if Rep. Durham

1 was ??shing.? The experience caused her to avoid any closed?door meetings with Rep. Durham.

On June 18, 2013, 'she sent Rep. Durham a text message to let him know she never heard
from any clients he said he would recommend her to. (Id. at 16?17.) He texted back ?I?m about
to send that email. Thought about it in the shower. Ha! I just realized i told you i thought about
you in the shower! That was not appropriate! Jane Doe #61 de?ected the comment by telling
him, think in the shower too. I get it! Not creepy.? He replied, ?Hahahaja good to hear!? (Id.
at 17-18.) She then saw that the email came through and thanked him. (Id. at 18.) 

On September 16, 2013, Jane Doc #61 attended the Tennessee Lobbyists Association
conference in Gatlinburg. She left the conference to go to a brewery with a group of legislators
and received a text message from Rep. Durham asking ?Where did you go?? (Id. at 20.) She felt
he was ?fishing? for an opening with her. She also recalled Rep. Durham asking her in the hallwa
of Legislative Plaza if she watched ?Family Guy? becaus the characters is alway
He told her, ?you have a hot face even though you are Although she said it did not
bother her, she felt it was inappropriate. Because she considers Rep. Durham?s actions toward her
inappropriatejane Doc #61 'will' not lobby him or go into his of?ce.

    

 
 

Jane Doe #61 permitted us to obtain, screen shots of the texts she had on her cell phone.
These covered the time period from March2 2013 ptember 16, 2013. She identi?ed the
messages as coming from Jeremy Durham,  . .

 

Jane Doc #60 Lobbyist

Lobbyist Jane Doc #60 believes she met Rep. Durham through members of her ?rm at the
beginning of the 2013 Session but did not lobby him during that session. in September 2013, She
attended the annual meeting of the Tennessee Lobbyists Association in Gatlinburg, Tennessee,
and remembered seeing him intoxicated in the lobby after being out with some members and
lobbyists. She ran into him again during fall 2013 at the University of Tennessee v. Auburn
football game in Knoxville. The two had a friendly conversation, and she recalled his asking for
her cell phone number in case he needed to call her during session. At the time, Jane Doe #60 did
not think anything of it and provided it to him for business purposes.

42

A week or so before Christmas 2013, Rep. Durham sent her a text message from his cell
phone number, saying he was in Nashville with friends and she should meet up
with him. She did not respond for a while because she and Rep. Durham did not have any sort of
friendly relationship that warranted the invitation. She eventually began to feel bad for not
responding because he was a legislator and her ?rm had to deal with him. She ?nally responded
something to the effect of ?Thanks. Already in Knoxville. See you during session.?
Representative Durham replied to the effect, ?That?s not what I meant but I?ll see you then.? She
does not believe she responded to the second text.

 

Jane Doe #60 stated that the texts were very strange because she has never been in a social,
?iendly setting with Rep. Durham outside of the Capitol. There was no business reason for him
to contact her in December, and she was the ?low person on the totem pole? at her firm at the time.
She found the texts ?orn him to be inappropriate and thought he was ?hitting on her? as if he was
?on the prowl.? She told Jane Doe #52 about the messages.

During the 2014 Session, she ran into Rep. Durham sitting at a table with Reps. Jane Doe
#33, John Doe #23, and Jane Doe #65 at The Oak Bar. She was there with Jane Doe #52 and
another firm member. He spoke to her and said something to the effect you missed a
good time. Thought you might want to go out.? Jane Doe #60 still had an ?ick? feeling about
- Rep. Durham?s pro?Christmas text messages and felt he had been trying to ?hit? on her. His
comments at The Oak Bar did not change that. 

After the 2014 Session, Jane Doe #60 made a joint decision with her firm that she would
not lobby Rep. Durham One-on-one because of the text messages he sent her and rumors of his
behavior toward other females. She stated that there was a common understanding ?om
conversations with other female lobbyists that they felt uncomfortable dealing with Rep. Durham
alone because of the way he made them feel.

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doe #60?s account:

During her interview, lobbyist Jane Doc #52 suggested that our Of?ce talk to Jane Doe #60
for information related to the investigation.

Jane Doe #9 Lobbyist

Early in the investigation, we attempted to interview Jane Doe #9 but she refused to talk to
our Of?ce. We were subsequently able to conduct a phone interview with her on May 23, 2016, 
about an incident she reported to legislative staff member John Dec #41 and fellow lobbyist Jane
Doe #18. in her interview, Jane Doe #9 stated that this occurred during the 2013 or 2014 Session
when she was alone in Rep. Durham?s of?ce with the door closed. He had a dish of candy on his
desk. When she wanted one, he reached into his pocket, rummaged around in it, pulled out an
unmapped, dirty mint, and said, ?You don?t want those. I?ve got this.? Although she considered
Rep. Durham?s behavior odd, she stated she was not offended by it and thought it was more of a
joke. She said she made up the name ?Pants Candy? for Rep. Durham afterward and that her

43

husband and others to whom she demonstrated the incident interpreted his action and comment as
sexually suggestive. In hindsight, she said she thought his behavior was inapprOpriate.

During the investigation, two witnesses independently related the ?Pants Candy? incident
as lobbyist Jane Doe #9 reported it to them. Both witnesses demonstrated the account as it Was
relayed to them by Jane Doc 

Legislative staff member John Doe #41 stated that Jane Doe #9 contacted him in January.
2016 regarding an incident. She reported that Rep. Durham had a bowl of breath mints sitting on
the desk in his of?ce. then she asked for one, Rep. Durham said, He then stood up behind
his desk, put his hand in his pocket, and moved it around in a manner that made ?quite a display?
of accentuating his genitalia. He then pulled an unwrapped, dirty mint from his pocket and said
something to the effect of, think this is the piece you want.? As a result, Jane Doe #9 began
:referring to Rep. Durham as ?Pants Candy.? At our request, John Doe #41 stood up during the
interview and demonstrated the account as provided to him by Jane Doe .

The second witness who related the ?Pants Candy? incident was fellow lobbyist Jane Doe
#18. Jane Doe #9 told her that she was in RepgDurham?s of?ce with a male lobbyist when Jane
Doe #9 madea comment. about Rep. Durham having the best candy for guests. Representative
Durham stood up from his desk and started digging around in his pocket in a manner that was
drawing attention tohis genitalia and stated, ?You don?t want that candy. You want this candy.?
He pulled an unwrapped piece of candy from his pocket, like a life saver. Jane Doe #9 told Jane
Doc #18 that Rep. Durham?s conduct was ?quite a production? and the male lobbyist with her
thought it was inappropriate, sexual, and an attempt to draw attention to his genitalia. Jane Doe
#18 also showed us the movements Jane Doe #9 demonstrated to her, which were like those John
Doc #41 showed us.

Jane Doe #43 - Lobbyist

Lobbyist Jane Doe #43 met Rep. Durham some time before he was elected and again at a
. political fundraiser shortly after he was elected in November 2012; She went to his office two or
three times during the 2013. Session to discuss bills. She initially received business-related teth
during the 2013?14 Session and was surprised that Rep. Durham had her cell phone number. But
at some point during the 2014 Session, the tone of his text messages to her changed to ??irty.? He
commented on her looks or how good she looked in what she was wearing. On April 26, 2014,
Rep. Durham saw Jane Doe #43 at the Tennessee Waltz and texted her cell phone, commenting on -
her looks. She thought it was inappropriate for a married man to send her such a text. She replied
nothing more than ?thank you.? She received more than two unsolicited texts from Rep. Durham
and thought he was testing her boundaries through the texts. She stated that Rep. Durham?s
behavior was more persistent than what she is used to at the Legislature. The texts were not
offensive but inappropriate for a married man to send to any woman. She told her husband about
the texts arid deleted them. Since April 2014, Jane Doe #43 thought she may have met with Rep.
- Durham on one occasion in his of?ce but had an intern with her. She is not comfortable meeting
with him alone because of his unsolicited text messages to her, rumors about his behavior with
other women, and his reputation for approaching women. Jane Doe #43 no longer has the text
messages on her cell phone.

44

The following additional information was provided to the Of?ce that is relevant to Jane
Doc #43 ?3 account:

In his interview, Rep. John Doe #55 recalled that in the latter part of 2015, he was at
Morton?s Steakhouse having dinner when Jane Doe #43 informed him that she received a text
message from Rep. Durham. She asked him if he wanted to see the text and he told her 

Jane Doc #8 Lobbyist

Jane Doe #8 had what she described as an uncomfortable interaction with Rep. Durham in
ebr 201 aer attending an evening lobbying event at War Memorial Plaza sponsored by
I I   ?rm. That evening, Rep. Durham appeared intoxicated and approached Jane

ink in his hand. 'He told her that he needed to talk to her and asked her to come
to his of?ce. She told us that Rep. Durham?s tone and body language were suggestive, and she
took his invitation as ?baby, come by my office.? The request was odd because he gave her no
business reason to meet, the two had no prior relationship, and he was not on any legislative
committees with which she had professional dealings. She made an excuse for not accepting his
invitation. About an hour later, Jane Doe #8 received a text message from Rep. Durham stating,
?Hey, are you coming? I need to talk to you.? She does not remember her response but thinks she
may have told him she would talk to him the next day. The following day, Jane Doc #8 went to
see Rep. Durham first thing in the morning. When she found him at Legislative Plaza and asked.
what he wanted to talk to her about, he told her ?never mind.? She recalled that whenever
she encountered Durham alone during the rest of the session, he was rude to her and looked at her
?like I kicked his mother.?

  

 

Vin.
OTHER WITNESSES

Several witnesses stated that they had not seenany inappropriate conduct by Rep. Durham
toward any women and did not know of any such conduct:

Representative Jane Doe #33

Rep. Jane Doe #33 ?rst met Rep. Durham when he was Chairman of the Young
Republicans and got to know him during the 2013 Session. She described their relationship as 
?best friends? and said they socialize regularly. She denied observing or having any knowledge
of any sexual advances, comments, pictures, sounds, or other inappropriate behavior by Rep.
Durham toward any women. She stated that he has never done any of these things to her or any
other person to her knowledge. Nor has anyone reported such conduct to her. She denied hearing
any rumors about Rep. Durham prior to The Tennessean articles in 2016. She stated that she has
discussed the allegations in the news stories with Rep. Durham and they ?laughed, about it.?

Representative Durham denied the allegations to her.

45

Representative John Doe #13

Representative John Doc #13 ?rst met Rep. Durham before his election to the House in
2012. Once Rep. Durham took of?ce, the two became friends and political allies. Representative
John Doc #13 stated he ?rst heard about Rep. Durham sending inappropriate text messages to
female lobbyists in the summer or fall of 2015. He stated that, on or around Monday, January 11,
2016, he approached a long?time friend and female lobbyist whose name he
declined to provide, concerning information he had heard regarding Rep. Durham sending
inappropriate text messages to her. Representative John Doe #13 approached Lobbyist #1 on the
?rst ?oor of Legislative Plaza outside LP-27 and told her that he understood she had received
inappropriate texts from Rep. Durham. He-stated that Lobbyist #1 denied that Rep. Durham sent
inappropriate'text messages to her. However, he questioned whether Lobbyist #1 was honest with
him about Rep. Durham? 3 conduct toward her based on her overall demeanor. Representative John
Doc #13 stated she did not want'to talk about it; she did, however, tell him that she had heard the
rumors of Rep. Durham?s inapprOpriate texts and provided him. the name of another lobbyist
(Lobbyist He had no further communication with Lobbyist #1 regarding the allegations.

Representative John Doe #13 then approached Lobbyist #2 (the female lobbyist whose
name he Was provided by Lobbyist He declined to provide the identity of Lobbyist #2 to the
Office. He described Lobbyist #2 as a ?good ?'iend.? Representative John Doe #13 stated he
asked Lobbyist #2 to come to his legislative, of?ce and had a private conversation with her.
Representative John Doc #13 said he told Lobbyist #2 that he had heard the rumors about Rep.
Durham sending inappropriate text messages and asked, ?You didn?t get any did you?? He said
that she laughed and stated, followed by a statement to the effect that she would ?break his
hea if he did. Lobbyist #2 told Rep. John Doc #13 she had heard rumors about Rep. Durham
and gave him three names. In the interview with the Of?ce, he stated that he-remernbered the
name of only one woman mentioned by Lobbyist #2 but declined to provide her identity to the
Office. Representative John Doe #13 stated he did not follow up with any of the females whose
names were provided by Lobbyist #2 and has not spoken to Lobbyist #2 regarding the allegations
since that date. 

During the week of January 11, 2016, possibly on Thursday, Rep. John Doc #13
approached another female lobbyist (?Lobbyist regarding the allegations against Rep.
Durham. He stated he had no information that Lobbyist #3 had received inappropriate text
messages ?om Rep. Durham; however, he told her that he had been hearing rumors of such
conduct and asked if she had received any such messages. Her answer was ?No, absolutely not.?
Representative John Doe #13 also asked Lobbyist #3 whether her intern had received any such
messages. Lobbyist #3 told him that she read her intern?s text messages at the end of each day and
was con?dent the intern had not received any inappropriate text messages. Representative John
Doe #13 declined to provide the Of?ce with Lobbyist #3?s identity.

Representative John Doe #13 stated he had not discussed his conversations with any of the
above?referenced lobbyists with anyone. He stated no individual has ever come to him with any
direct complaints about Rep. Durham?s conduct related to allegations of inappropriate text
messages sent to lobbyists, employees, staff members, or interns. Representative John Doe #13
recalled more than one conversation with Rep. Durham after The Tennessean articles about three .

46

women?s texts appeared in anuary 2016. During those conversations, Rep. Durham told Rep.
John Doc #13 that he did not remember sending inappropriate text messages.

Representative John Due #23

Representative John Doc #23 stated that he, Rep. Durham, and a group of House members
regularly socialize together and became ?fast, close friends.? He denied ever witnessing Durham
make any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical
conduct (such as sexual innuendos, suggestive comments, sexual jokes, propositions, threats,
sexually suggestive pictures, sounds, leering, obscene gestures, etc.) toward any employee of the 
legislature, other state employee, staffer, intern, or lobbyist. He stated that had he witnessed such
conduct, he would have ?said something.? However, Rep. John Doc #23 stopped ?hanging out??
with Rep. Durham during 2015 because he was ?not fun to be around.? Representative John Doe
#13? stated no person has ever come to him directly and reported any inappropriate conduct by Rep.
Durham. Representative John Doe #23 had a conversation with Rep. Durham after The I
Tennessean articles appeared, and Rep. Durham told him that he did not remember sending the
texts and denied doing anything wrong.

Additional Information

During the investigation, the Office conducted 78 interviews of 72 witnesses. This number
includes both men and women. Not all witness interviews are included in. the report because
witnesses in aninvestigation are interviewed for a variety of reasons. Some witnesses have actual 
experiences with the subject of an investigation, others are eyewitnesses to or have knowledge of
another person?s experience with the subject, others have information that leads to relevant
evidence, and still others have no knowledge or helpful information. This investigation was no
different. A number of witnesses in this instance had to be interviewed before the Of?ce
discovered the identities of women who had disclosed to someone, usually a friend or colleague,
that they had an experience with Rep. Durham. Consequently, there were a number of witnesses
who did not report experiencing inappropriate conduct by Rep. Durham themselves but often had
heard rumors about others who had, which we followed to the source, or had some personal
knowledge of another person?s experience, which provided a lead.

IX.
REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSE-T0 REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

On February 11 and 13, 2016, the Office obtained Rep. Durham?s stateuowned Lenovo
desktop computer and 'iP-ad. The Of?ce noti?ed him by a hand-delivered letter on February 12,
2016, that it had obtained an image of the desktop. The Office also requested that he provide all
data, including emails and text-messages, ??om any cell phone he used from January 2013 to the
present. Representative Durham did not respond.

The Off-ice sent a second hand-delivered letter on February 22, 2016, notifying Rep.

Durham that it'would begin reviewing the data on the state-owned devices on February 29, 2016,
and requesting that he identify any data that constitutes attorney-client privilege, private spousal

47

and other family communications, and other private ?nancial or medical information.
Representative Durham did not respond.

On March 4, 2016, the Of?ce met with Rep. Durham?s counsel, Mr. Harbison, who
informed us that his ?rm had retained LogicForce Consulting, LLC, to preserve Rep. Durham?s
personal cell phone data. The data covered only the past year. in a subsequent correspondence,
Rep. Durham requested that the Of?ce provide him with search terms for the information sought
on his personal cell phone, which we declined to do. The Of?ce had concerns that providing Rep.
Durham with this information would compromise the integrity of the investigation and
con?dentiality of the witnesses. Representative Durham subsequently rejected the Of?ce?s
proposal to supply con?dential search terms to LogicForce Consulting for screening, rather than
providing them directly to him or his counsel. Initially, Rep. Durham agreed to discuss a method
for the Of?ce to obtain the data relevant to the investigation; however, he did not propose or
entertain any alternative method by which the Of?ce could examine the contents of his personal
cell phone aside from giving him the search terms directly. Thus, the parties were unable to agree
on a procedure that Would allow the Of?ce to obtain relevant data and screen out privileged
information, which prevented us from having access to the data on Rep. Durham?s personal cell
phone. -

The Of?ce again requested Rep. Durham?s cooperation, through letters to his counsel on
March 8 and 17 and April 20, 2016, to screen con?dential information before the Of?ce examined
the data on his state-owned devices. Representative Durham, through counsel, responded with an
objection to the examination on April 20, 2016, citing attorney?client and spousal privileges, but
did not identify any speci?c data these privileges covered. We subsequently retained the services
of a third party to obtain a forensic image of the data on the state-owned devices, and we analyzed
the data obtained. Additionally, the Of?ce requested in the March 8, 2016 letter that Rep. Durham
provide us with the names of any other witnesses with relevant information that the Of?ce should
interview; however, he did not provide any names.

Early in the investigation the Of?ce informed Rep. Durham?s counsel that we would seek
to interview him --to give him the opportunity to address any allegations and evidence of
inappropriate conduct. The Of?ce recently made a formal request through Rep. Darham? attorney
to interview him as part of the investigation. Representative Durham declined to be interviewed.

48