The question of whether someone can file an ethics complaint with a home rule city or county and the state’s Independent Ethics Commission at the same time will wait another day for an answer.

On Thursday the ethics commission dismissed a complaint against a former Glendale city councilman because the commission’s official views on home rule ethics codes had not been developed at the time the complaint was filed.

At issue is an ethics complaint involving Jeff Allen, who voted on the city’s 2016-17 budget while simultaneously serving on the Glendale city council and as the CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, which receives a substantial portion of its budget from the city, and according to the complaint.

The state’s ethics laws prohibit a public official from voting on an issue in which he or she has a financial interest.

Two ethics complaints were filed in February 2016: one with the city of Glendale and another with the state ethics commission. The complainant, MAK Investment Group, had been in a dispute with the city over the expansion of the company’s rug business in Glendale and the city’s plans to redevelop the site as part of its signature development project, Glendale 180. The city has since abandoned its plans for the MAK property.

Both complaints alleged that Allen should have recused himself on the vote. An investigation by the city attorney pointed out that the city council doesn’t actually vote on line items in the budget, and that monies going to the chamber are a decision made by the city manager as well through a longstanding city resolution that predated Allen’s service on the council.

In June 2016, the city council, acting as the ethics body for the city, unanimously dismissed the complaint against Allen as frivolous. He was no longer on the city council, as he was term-limited and replaced in an April 2016 election.

Prior to their decision on whether to accept the complaint, the state ethics commission decided to issue a position statement on the issue of home rule city and county ethics codes. That statement was issued in December 2016; in January, the commission voted to accept the Glendale complaint.

The position statement addressed commission concerns about the validity of home rule ethics codes. Under Amendment 41, home rule cities and counties can be exempted from the commission’s jurisdiction if the ethics codes substantially meet the requirements of Amendment 41.

But Glendale’s code lacked language on one of the amendment’s most significant sections, on gifts to elected officials. That made the code inadequate, commissioners said.

On Thursday commissioners debated over whether to apply the commission’s position on the adequacy of home rule ethics codes retroactively to the Glendale complaint.

Commission Chair Matt Smith of Grand Junction said there was no question that Glendale’s code fails when compared against the commission’s position statement.

“It’s high time the commission embraces 16-01 [the position statement] and make that announcement …. Sidestepping it doesn’t serve the public,” he told commissioners.

But Commissioner Gary Reiff of Denver later said that he did not think it would be fair to use the Glendale case to send the message that some home rule cities and counties had not gone far enough in their ethics codes.

The commissioners went back and forth over whether the commission’s position on home rule should apply to the Glendale case, given that the case was already before them when they developed that position. In the end, the group voted 4-1 to dismiss the complaint, with Smith the lone “no” vote, because the position statement was not in place at the time the complaint was filed.

Allen told Colorado Politics after the hearing that he was very pleased the matter has been resolved. 

Although they didn’t succeed with the complaint, Nasrin Kholghy of MAK Investments, in a statement issued Thursday afternoon, said they were pleased that Smith recognized that the Glendale code of ethics failes to meet the state’s ethics requirements.

“Hopefully, Glendale and other home rule cities will now propose and adopt comprehensive ethics plans that protect constituents against abuse,” Kholghy said.

“Our efforts have successfully put home rule cities on notice that they must get serious about ethics issues, and that’s a huge victory for Colorado residents who voted for stronger government ethics in 2006 when they passed Amendment 41.”

Commissioner Bill Leone reiterated during Thursday’s meeting that home rule cities and counties can submit their ethics codes for review by the commission, but not one has ever done so.

In other commission action: the commission decided to proceed with an investigation on an ethics complaint filed against Sen. Vicki Marble of Fort Collins. Marble is alleged to have accepted a gift from an oil and gas company executive that exceeds the state limit of $59. Marble hosted a town hall in Broomfield last February at a restaurant in which attendees were given free drinks and food. The executive from Extraction Oil and Gas, Brian Cain, paid the tab.

The commission also decided to hold a November hearing on the complaint against Rep. Kim Ransom of Lone Tree, who accepted a $600 gold pass to attend the 2016 Western Conservative Summit. The complaint alleged the pass, given to recipients of an award from Principles of Liberty, exceeded the $59 gift limit and violated the ethics law.