A bill approved by the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee Wednesday could mean hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who have been frustrated by their interactions with metropolitan districts could have a venue for redress.

But those who run the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission are hoping people will take some time to learn about the commission’s narrow scope of responsibility before filing what’s expected to be an onslaught of complaints, should the measure pass.

House Bill 1073 would add special districts and certain school district personnel to the jurisdiction of the state’s ethics board. That would include school board members and those who are direct hires, such as a superintendent. It would not apply to principals, teachers, or any other school personnel.

The measure won a party-line 8-3 vote from the committee and heads off to House Appropriations. Its fiscal note of $111,000 reflects the addition of another commission employee to handle the additional complaints.

While Article 29 of the state constitution says that the commission’s jurisdiction is limited to “public officers,” which includes all statewide elected officeholders, the head of any department of the executive branch, and elected and appointed members of state boards and commissions, it does not include any member of a board, commission, council or committee who receives no compensation other than a per diem allowance or necessary and reasonable expenses.

In 2022, the commission clarified its jurisdictional role regarding local government and other officials who do not receive compensation for their services. A position paper issued by the commission noted the definition of “public officer” specifically exempts unpaid board and commission members and “local government official[s]” from the definition of public officer.

That’s partly what sunk a 2023 version of the bill heard this week, concerns raised that the measure was unconstitutional.

The position paper concluded the plain language of Article 29 “draws a distinction that is difficult to ignore. Local government officials are subject to the IEC’s jurisdiction, and to the ethical standards set forth in Article XXIX, whether or not they are paid.” Statewide boards and commissions whose members are unpaid remain outside of the commission’s jurisdiction under that position paper.

There are 178 school districts with elected boards and more than 2,600 special districts, with the majority of them metropolitan districts clustered along the Front Range.

Rep. Tammy Story, D-Evergreen, a co-sponsor of HB 1073, noted that in addition to the state’s gift ban, there’s an element of conflict of interest, and the public should have respect for and confidence in public employees who should avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust.

Cosponsor Rep. Jennifer Parenti, D-Erie, added the districts covered under the bill “control billions of dollars of taxpayer revenue and currently enjoy an environment in which there exists no clear avenue to hear complaints of potential violations of our ethics code, including the use of their positions for personal gain.”

Testimony during Wednesday’s hearing focused on complaints from those who have dealt with the Woodland Park and Douglas County school districts, and complaints from homeowners in metropolitan districts where developers who serve as metropolitan district directors may financially benefit from those associations. But many of those complaints, including not being allowed to speak at school board meetings, for example, still won’t be considered by the commission.

Those who represent school boards and special districts believe the commission is not the right venue for the few “bad actors” who may be in those districts.

Matt Cook, representing the Colorado Association of School Boards, said most elected school board members perform their duties in an upright and ethical manner, and sought an amendment to clarify that the commission’s jurisdiction would apply only to school boards and the superintendents, language that was added to the bill Wednesday.

Michael Valdez, chief governmental affairs officer for the Special District Association of Colorado, claimed the number of bad actors among his members is relatively few, and the bill wasn’t necessary.

“We train and educate our boards that holding public office as a public trust and directors must carry out their duties for the benefit of the community and, of course, not themselves.”

He suggested instead of the bill adding special districts to the commission’s jurisdiction, that the special district association provide ethics training.

“Our concern with expanding the jurisdiction is that when you open the door, filings will come in… some of those filings will be groundless, frivolous and, without merit,” Valdez said.

What concerns the association most, Valdez said, is the kinds of cases that are on the margin, cases that are not ethical violations but anger with the kind of result that someone didn’t get during a director’s position.

In response to questions from the committee, Cook said most school boards try to do their business as transparently and ethically as possible. “Are there some bad actors? Occasionally, perhaps,” he said. But they’re not convinced the commission is the correct vehicle for those issues.

Valdez said they don’t get complaints about their member districts, but that’s probably because there’s no place at the association for those complaints to go. That’s why the association supports education as the way to proceed so that people won’t feel the need to file complaints, he said.

Colorado Common Cause’s Andrew Barton said the bill is especially important for special districts, which he said, “suffer from a lack of oversight and accountability.” Colorado Common Cause, with then-State Board of Education member Jared Polis as a backer, launched the ballot initiative that became Article 29 in 2006.

Adding special districts to the commission’s jurisdiction “will ensure that conflicts of interest, unethical actions, and corruption within school districts and special districts can be investigated,” Barton said.

The commission and the bill had their detractors. Former state Rep. Miller Hudson, a Colorado Politics columnist, pointed out the commission process has been weaponized by political parties and candidates over its 16-year existence, such as former Secretary of State Scott Gessler and U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado.

The commission has “hardly covered themselves in glory over the past 20 years.” Hudson said he likes to challenge people to name three significant policy decisions from the commission that have influenced state government, and no one has ever named one.

“In a local control state, I don’t see any reason why these organizations should be pulled into a dysfunctional system,” Hudson said.

As to the weaponization issue, Hudson said someone could wind up with an opponent in a legislative race and point out that person was taken before the commission. Nothing necessarily must happen, Hudson said, or that elected officials are long gone from office by the time the commission takes action, as was true for both Gessler and Hickenlooper.

“The reform of the IEC is far more important than expansion of its jurisdiction,” Hudson said.

Those who testified in favor of the bill raised a host of issues, but few that would fall under the commission’s jurisdiction.

That included complaints about school boards that don’t listen to parent concerns, teacher shortages and harassment of teachers by school board members, or concerns about how a school board ignores the state’s open records law, which the commission has no authority over.

The ethics commission has limited authority to investigate complaints. The board receives about 30 complaints yearly, except for 2020, when it got 80, largely due to the attention paid to complaints filed against Hickenlooper.

But even in that year, the commission decided to investigate just five, or about 6% of the total complaints. That’s about average.

The complaints that don’t get into the investigation lane are those that are frivolous or fall outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

“I think we will end up with many complaints,” Dino Ioannides, the commission’s executive director, recently told Colorado Politics.

What concerns him is the likelihood of a deluge of complaints that the commission cannot consider. People file complaints the commission routinely dismisses about human resource issues, incompetence, or policy positions that officials take that the complainant doesn’t like, he said.

Homeowners’ associations also do not fall under commission jurisdiction.

The constitution limits the commission to looking at just a short list of issues. That includes a ban on gifts from lobbyists to elected officials and restrictions on lobbying by former statewide elected officials or members of the General Assembly.

What the commission moves into investigations most often is when a government official or employee misuses their position for personal or private gain, known as self-dealing.

That’s what caught Hickenlooper, who accepted travel gifts – for which he paid a small fine- and Gessler, who challenged the commission’s authority all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear his appeal. Gessler’s complaint cost taxpayers more than $500,000. He later paid a fine of $1,514.88.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Ioannides told the committee that “frivolous” does not mean silly. “If we don’t have jurisdiction over the underlying issue, those complaints are dismissed” and remain confidential.

There were a few witnesses Wednesday who raised concerns about financial improprieties by school boards and special districts, which is an area where the commission has authority.

Liz Wilson of Adams County said she knows about many incidents that could fall under the commission’s purview, such as conflicts of interest that are demonstrated by awarding contracts to individuals that appear to result in personal gain, family gain, and sidestep public input regardless of policies.

JD Lobue was among several witnesses who pointed to financial irregularities in metro districts that could fall under commission review. Lobue said some special districts for residential communities “act more primarily as a profit center for developer interests and less of a necessity to keep costs down.” Going to the metro district director does not work, since developer interests have superseded the benefits to residents.

This bill would create an independent path for resident complaints, Lobue said.