Complaints
Complaint 08-01: 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
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)
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 09-09: 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)