Colorado lawmakers have set aside $800,000 in taxpayer dollars in anticipation of legislation that would independently fund the office that investigates and disciplines judges.

The as-yet-introduced bill might also have a provision requiring voters to approve an amendment to the Colorado Constitution to create an independent Office of Judicial Discipline, removing its current iteration from the influence of the state Supreme Court, according to a budget hearing last month.

The allocation is separately part of the state’s proposed spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The Senate on Thursday approved the budget package. Legislators from both chambers will meet to reconcile differences in their spending plans.

The current Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline is funded by attorney registration fees collected and controlled by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, both of which fall under the direct control of the Colorado Supreme Court.

That arrangement came under fire earlier this year when members of the commission, in a highly unusual public discourse, told legislators the high court hadn’t approved funding requests for a law firm to investigate allegations of widespread judicial misconduct.

The commission in January asked legislators to create a new Office of Judicial Discipline that is wholly independent of the court, in part to insulate it “from external pressures, including the discretion of other entities to constrain the (commission’s) funding and resources.”

It’s unclear if any upcoming legislation – none has been introduced but sources familiar with the process said a proposal is imminent – would create the independent office or whether it would only address the independent funding source.

Lawmakers said to have a hand in the process would not publicly discuss the matter when contacted by The Gazette.

The commission initially asked for more than $1 million in funding – $400,000 of it to pay for the special counsel it hired last year to look into misconduct allegations tied to a contract given to a former Judicial Department official.

Commission Chairwoman Elizabeth Espinosa Krupa and vice-chairman El Paso County District Judge David Prince have said the Supreme Court has been less than helpful in its investigation efforts, particularly with what its investigators could look into.

Creating an independent office would require a change to the part of the Colorado Constitution that created the discipline commission. Joint Budget Committee Vice-Chairman Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver, said at a hearing that such an effort has been discussed.

“I think there’s going to need to be a constitutional amendment for us to do this Office of Judicial Discipline and that is in motion as I understand it,” Hansen told the committee at its meeting March 18. “I think it has evolved in a significant way, with a very intense meeting with the Attorney General’s Office on this topic.”

The Supreme Court has been at odds with the commission over the investigation, so much so that the 10-member disciplinary board was forced to subpoena the Judicial Department – and by extension the high court – over access to information it says it’s entitled to see.

That came after months of back-and-forth wrangling, in which the commission repeatedly admonished the court for not being forthcoming during its inquiry.

“The JBC has set aside $800,000 General Fund for a forthcoming bill to codify in statute the operations of and funding sources for the Office of Judicial Discipline,” the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee budget package narrative says. “This set-aside of state funds is intended to provide fiscal independence for the Commission’s constitutional purposes by providing a base amount for office operations and to seed fund a special investigations cash fund.”

The investigation is focused on a $2.5 million contract for judicial training that was awarded in 2019 to former Judicial Department chief of staff Mindy Masias, who was facing dismissal over financial irregularities. The contract was rescinded after it became public and at least three department officials resigned in its wake.

Masias allegedly threatened a sex-discrimination lawsuit, in which she would disclose dozens of misdeeds by judges that either went unpunished or were intentionally kept quiet. The information was contained in a two-page memo that was allegedly read to then-Chief Justice Nathan “Ben” Coats in a meeting where it was decided to give Masias the contract. 

Several investigations were launched following the disclosure of the memo, including one by the state auditor that referred four people for criminal investigation including Masias and Eric Brown, the Judicial Department’s former human resources director who allegedly inked the memo, and former State Court Administrator Chris Ryan.

Neither Masias nor Brown has spoken publicly about the allegations.