Banner Art

Complaints

 

Before filing a complaint with the IEC please review FYI 4 on this website.  If you decide to file a complaint, fill out the form found in FYI 4 and forward it to the Executive Director describing in detail the allegations.   Please note that the Commission only has jurisdiction over activities which occurred during the preceding 12 months prior to the filing of a complaint.   If you have any questions about whether a complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the IEC please contact the IEC staff before you file.   

 

Complaints which appear in bold are those which the IEC have found to be non frivolous or dismissed on other grounds. 

 

 

 2014 Complaints:

 

Complaint 14-01:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint as frivolous and for lack of  jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rules 7.G.1 and 7.G.2  (02/10/14)

 

Complaint 14-02:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint for lack of jurisdicition pursuant to  IEC Rule 7.G.2.  (02/25/14)

 

Complaint 14-03:  The Commission voted  unanimously to dismiss this complaint as frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rules 7.G.1 and 7.G.2.  (02/25/14)

 

Complaint 14-04:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.2.  (03/10/14)

 

Complaint 14-05:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint for lack of jurisdicition pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.2.  (03/10/14)

 

Complaint 14-06:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.2. (3/31/14)

 

 

 2013 Complaints:

 

Complaint 13-01: The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (09/03/13).



Complaint 13-02:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1.  (03/04/13).

 

Complaint 13-03:   The Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Smith not participating), to find the complaint non-frivolous, and directed staff to investigate.  (03/04/13).   The Commission on reconsideration dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1.  Commissioner Smith not participating.  (08/05/13).



 Complaint 13-04:  The Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Leone not participating) to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to Rule 7.G.1. (07/01/13).
 
 

Complaint 13-05:  The Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Leone not participating) to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous under Rules 7.G.1 and 7.G.2. (07/01/13).

 

Complaint 13-06:  The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (09/13/13)

 

Complaint 13-07: (Thomas)The Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner Leone not participating) to find the Complaint as non frivolous and directed staff to investigate. (07/01/13).  The Commission accepted a Motion to Dismiss on 08/05/13, and conducted a hearing on the Motion.  The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this complaint.  (09/03/13)  Final Order 

 

Complaint 13-08: The Commission voted 5-0 to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rules 7.G.1 and 7.G.2. (08/05/13).
 
 

Complaint 13-09: The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (09/03/13)

 

Complaint 13-10, parts 1-3:  The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rules 7.G.1 and 7.G.2.  (09/03/13)

 

Complaint 13-11 (Hickenlooper): The Commission voted unanimously to find the Complaint non frivolous and directed staff to investigate.  (11/18/13).  Complaint 13-11   Response (12/20/13)

 

Complaint 13-12:  The Commission voted 4-1 (Commissioner Leone dissenting), to dismiss the complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (02/10/14)

 

  

 

 2012 Complaints:


Complaint 12-01: The Commission voted 3-0 (Commissioner Hopper excused) to dismiss as frivolous pursuant to Rule 7.G.1.  (01/17/12)



Complaint 12-02: The Commission voted 3-0 (Commissioner Hopper excused), to dismiss as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (01/17/12) 



Complaint 12-03: The Commission voted 4-0 to dismiss as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (02/06/12)



Complaint 12-04: The Commission voted 4-0 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.2. (04/03/12)
 


Complaint 12-05:  The Commission voted 4-0 to dismiss as frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1 and 7.G.2. (07/30/12)

 

Complaint 12-06:  (Brandau)The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to deem the complaint as non-frivolous and to notify the respondent. (10/01/12).  Complaint 12-06 The Commission held a hearing on February 4, 2013, and found no violation of Article XXIX or other standards of conduct under the jurisdiction of the IEC.  Final Order

 

 

Complaint 12-07 (Gessler).  The Commission voted unanimously to find the complaint non frivolous,
 and to notify respondent. Complaint 12-07. and Supplemental Complaint.  (11/05/12).

 

Commission denied motions to dismiss and for a new determination on frivolousness.  Oral decision (01/07/13), followed by written order.  (01/23/13)

 

Response to Complaint.

 

Investigative Report 12-07 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law  issued June 19, 2013

 

 

2011 Complaints:

 

Complaint 11-01: (Baker)The IEC voted 3-0 (Commissioner Grossman recused, Commissioner Smith not participating) to find the complaint non frivolous, and to ask the staff to investigate. (2/23/11). On 01/17/12, the Commission invoked the rule of necessity and scheduled the matter for a hearing on February 28, 2012.  Final Order

 

Complaint 11-02: (Binz)The IEC voted 3-0 (Commissioner Grossman recused, Commissioner Smith not participating) to find the complaint  non frivolous, and to ask the staff to investigate. (2/23/11). A hearing was conducted on November 17, 2011.  Final Order

 

Complaint 11-03: (McCasky) The IEC voted 3-1 (Commissioner Hopper recused, Commissioner Smith dissenting) that the complaint is not frivolous.  (6/20/11).  A hearing was conducted on February 6, 2012.  The parties submitted additional materials.  On March 19, 2012, the Commission voted 3-0 to find Respondent not in violation of Article XXIX, but in violation of C.R.S. section 24-18-109(2)(b) (2-1, Commissioner Smith dissenting), and  3-0 in violation of C.R.S. section 24-18-109(3)(a).  Final Order



Complaint 11-04:  The IEC voted unanimously (4-0) to dismiss for failure to allege conduct which occurred in the previous 12 months (IEC Rule 7.G.3), and for lack of jurisdiction (IEC Rule 7.G.2).  (4/21/11).

 

Complaint 11-05: The IEC voted unanimously (5-0) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (IEC Rule 7.G.2).  (6/20/11). 

 

Complaint 11-06:  The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1 (05/19/11).
 

 

Complaint 11-07: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss pursuant to Article XXIX sections 3 (a) and (b) and IEC Rule 7.G.2 because the conduct alleged occurred more than 12 months before the filing of the Complaint.  (06/20/11)

 

Complaint 11-08: The IEC voted unanimously (5-0) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (IEC Rule 7.G.2).  (6/20/11). 

 

Complaint 11-09: The IEC voted unanimously (5-0) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (IEC Rule 7.G.2).  (6/20/11). 

 

Complaint 11-10: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (IEC Rule 7.G.2).  (Commissioner Grossman excused). (7/22/11)




Complaint 11-11:  The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rule 7.G.1. (8/26/11).

 
Complaint 11-12: (Public Trustees Association) The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Hopper excused) to find the complaint non-frivolous and to proceed.  (1/17/12).  The parties agreed to a stipulated settlement which was approved by the Commission after a hearing. (3/19/12)  
Final Order 

 

 

2010 Complaints:

 

Complaint 10-01: (Morse)The IEC voted 4-1 (Commissioner Smith, dissenting) to deem the Complaint non- frivolous and directed the Executive Director to conduct further investigation. (04/19/10)  Summary of Final Action (5/26/10)  

 

 

Complaint 10-02: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (04/19/10)

 


Complaint 10-03: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1, because the complaint alleges a violation against an employee of a school district, and the IEC does not have personal jurisdiction over school district employees. (04/19/10).

 

Complaint 10-04: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint as frivolous. (04/19/10).

 

Complaint 10-05The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.E.2  (3/3/11). 

 

Complaint 10-06: The IEC voted unanimously to find that there was a factual basis for a stipulated resolution of the complaint. Final Order  (01/11/11)

Complaint 10-07: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for failure to allege conduct which occurred in the previous 12 months, and as frivolous pursuant to Article XXIX Section 5(3)(a) and (b), and Commission's Rules of Procedure 7.D.2 and 7.D.4.  (9/13/10).

 

Complaint 10-08: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss because alleged violation did not occur within preceeding 12 months, and the alleged conduct, if true, would not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct under the jurisdiction of the IEC in accordance with Article XXIX Section 5(3)(a) and Commission's Rule 7.D.3 and 7.D.4.  (9/13/10).

 

Complaint 10-09: The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss because the alleged violation, if true, does not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct under the jurisdiction of the IEC pursuant to Commission's Rule 7.D.3.  (9/13/10).  The Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to deny a request to reconsider (11/5/10).

 

Complaint 10-10 The Commission voted unanimously to dismiss because the alleged violation, if true, does not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct under the jurisdiction of the IEC.  (10/7/10).

 

Complaint 10-11: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1, because the complaint alleges a violation against an employee of a special district, and the IEC does not have personal jurisdiction over special district employees.  (1/19/11).

 

Complaint 10-12: (Binz) The IEC voted 3-0 (Commissioner Grossman recused and Commissioner Smith not participating), to find the complaint non frivolous and to direct staff to investigate.  (1/19/11). Consolidated with 11-02.

 

 

2009 Complaints:

 

Complaint 09-01: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.3, because the alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of Colorado Constitution Article XXIX, or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (01/14/09)

 

Complaint 09-02: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.3, because the alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of Colorado Constitution Article XXIX, or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (02/02/09)

 

Complaint 09-03: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1. The IEC has jurisdiction to hear complaints against a "public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or government employee." See, Article XXIX Sec. 5(3)(a).

 

This Complaint alleges ethical violations by members of a school board. Members of boards who receive no compensation other than a per diem allowance or necessary or reasonable expenses are expressly excluded from the definition of "public officer" set forth in Article XXIX Sec. 2(6). The IEC therefore has no jurisdiction to hear complaints against unpaid school board members.

 

This Complaint also alleges ethical violations by an employee of a school district. A school district is not a "county or municipality" and therefore is not a "local government" under Sec. 2(2). Therefore, the employee is not a "government employee" under Sec. 2(1) and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the IEC. (04/06/09)

 

Complaint 09-04: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint due to insufficient evidence to proceed. The failure of the Complaint to set forth a statement of facts underlying the Complaint with sufficient specificity as required by IEC Rule 7.C necessitates dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.E.3. for failure to comply with IEC Rules of Procedure regarding Complaints. (04/06/09) (Complaint was withdrawn prior to official notification by the IEC).

 

Complaint 09-05: The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Lasha excused) to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (07/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-06: The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Lasha excused) to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (07/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-07: The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Lasha excused) to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (07/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-08: (Burns) The IEC voted unanimously to find the complaint non-frivolous and directed the Executive Director to further investigate. (08/21/09). Following a hearing, the IEC voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint; the IEC found that respondent had not violated Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct under the jusrisdiction of the IEC. (03/11/10).  Summary of Final Action  

 

Complaint 09-09: The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Lasha excused) to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (07/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-10: The IEC voted unanimously (Commissioner Lasha excused) to dismiss this Complaint pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1,.3, because the allegations, if true, do not constitute a violation of Article XXIX or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (07/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-11: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss this Complaint as frivolous pursuant to Article XXIX, Section 5(3)(b) and IEC Rule 7.D.2. (8/21/09).

 

Complaint 09-12: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss the first claim as outside the 12 month period pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.4, and to stay consideration of the second claim pending a decision by another body pursuant to IEC Rule 7.F.1. Commissioner Grossman did not participate. (10/19/09).  The Commission voted unanimously, 4-0 to dismiss the second claim as frivolous pursuant to IEC Rules 3.A.5 and  7.G.1 (10/01/12)

 

Complaint 09-13: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1, because the complaint does not allege a violation against any person under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (11/20/09).

 

Complaint 09-14: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.3, because the alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of Article XXIX, or any other standard of conduct under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (11/20/09).

  

 

2008 Complaints:

 

 Complaint 08-01: (Coffman) The IEC voted 3-1 (Commissioner Smith dissenting) to deem the complaint non-frivolous and proceed to a public hearing. (Commissioner Hopper recused). (10/06/08)

 

1/28/09:  Order regarding Motion to Recuse or Transfer 

 

2/05/09:  0rder Regarding Motion to Dismiss 

 

2/05/09:  Order Regarding Motion to Determine Evidentiary Standard 

 

2/13/09:  Amended Notice of Hearing 

 

04/14/09:  Final Order

 

Complaint 08-02: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss on two grounds: The Commission found the complaint frivolous, and further the alleged misconduct occurred more than 12 months prior to the filing of the complaint, pursuant to Colorado Constitution Article XXIX, Section 5(2)(3)(a) and (b), and IEC Rule 7.D. 2 and 4. (10/6/08)

 

Complaint 08-03: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.1, because it alleges misconduct by a member of the judicial branch. (10/06/08)

 

Complaint 08-04: The IEC voted unanimously to dismiss pursuant to IEC Rule 7.D.3, because the alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of Colorado Constitution Article XXIX, or any other standard of conduct or reporting requirement under the jurisdiction of the IEC. (10/06/08)