A Denver district court judge has upheld a decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals regarding whether the state’s ethics commission can assert jurisdiction over local governments that have their own ethics code.

The decision could end an eight-year fight over ethics complaints filed against the mayor of Glendale, the origin of the city’s challenge to the ethics commission’s claims of jurisdiction.

It could also end the ethics commission’s decisions to assert jurisdiction over home rule governments on ethics.

Under subsection 7 of the state ethics law, a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2006, “any county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect to ethics matters that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this article. The requirements of this article shall not apply to home rule counties or home rule municipalities that have adopted charters, ordinances, or resolutions that address the matters covered by this article.”

The ethics commission, however, has claimed jurisdiction multiple times when it believes the ethics codes adopted by counties or municipalities, including those with home rule authority, don’t pass muster.

That’s been at the heart of two ethics complaints filed against Glendale Mayor Mike Dunafon in 2016 and 2017, which date back to meetings by the Glendale City Council in February 2015. Two complaints were also filed against a Glendale city council member, and they were later dismissed.

In October, the commission ruled that Dunafon had violated the state ethics law but did not assess any fines for that violation.

The commission also claimed jurisdiction in a complaint filed against a Weld County commissioner in 2018 and in a complaint filed this year against a member of the Durango City Council. However, in the latter case, the IEC would have the authority to investigate since the city’s ethics code does not apply to city council members.

Both Weld County and the city of Durango have home-rule authority. That’s when local governments with that authority “are not required to follow state statutes in matters of local and municipal concern and therefore enjoy freedom from state interference regarding local and municipal matters,” according to the Colorado Municipal League.

In her ruling, Denver District Court Judge Jill D. Dorancy wrote, “There is no authority for the IEC to hold concurrent jurisdiction with the municipality so long as the municipality has addressed the issue over which the IEC was created.” She noted that for the ethics commission to assert that jurisdiction would render subsection 7 “superfluous.”

The lawsuit, City of Glendale vs. State Ethics Commission, was originally filed in 2020. The Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Counties Inc. filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Glendale’s position.

in the 2020 filing, Glendale disputed the IEC’s jurisdiction, claiming it had established its own code of ethics that would make it exempt from the IEC. But the IEC countered the city’s code of ethics didn’t meet the “proper requirements” and would not be exempt.

Dorancy noted Glendale’s ethics code contained a gift ban, a penalty provision or discipline process, and an independent decisionmaker, outside of city council, to handle complaints.

In 2023, the ethics commission said the Glendale code was insufficient because it lacked a complaint and investigative process in its code.

Dorancy sided with Glendale, stating its ethics code met the requirements under the state ethics amendment. At the heart of her ruling are three words in subsection 7: “Address the matters.” Dorancy wrote that the state Supreme Court or state Court of Appeals had not defined the term as it applies to home-rule cities. “The Court finds that the phrase ‘address the matters’ is susceptible to multiple meanings and is thus ambiguous.”

The judge also rejected an IEC claim that it has the authority to resolve ethics complaints, “regardless of whether the municipality is exempt” under Article 29 and even if the municipality has a process for resolving them.

Colorado case law regarding a home rule municipality’s authority “is well settled,” Dorancy wrote. “If the home rule city’s regulation conflicts with the state statute, the home rule enactment will control in matters of purely local concern.” The ethical duties of an elected official or employee falls under a city’s home rule charter, and hence deprives the IEC of jurisdiction, she wrote.

“This decision should once and for all answer the question for the IEC,” which has asserted its authority over home rule municipalities, said Kevin Bommer, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League. He told Colorado Politics that Glendale’s charter ordinances address all the matters covered by Amendment 41, and the city can decide how to address those matters.

Equally important, home-rule municipalities have exclusive authority over ethics. The ethics commission doesn’t get to decide whether or not an ethics code meets some standard. The court was very clear on that, he added.

Bommer noted that this has gone on for a long time, “and it shouldn’t take this long for plain language on an otherwise confusing amendment to be misconstrued for this long. Amendment 41 was clear, and I’m glad the courts have finally acknowledged that.”

Colorado Counties, Inc.’s Executive Director, Kelly Flenniken, told Colorado Politics, “I appreciate the clarity that comes from the court on this issue as it certainly speaks to local control and underscores the powers home rule municipalities and counties have.”

The commission had not met to review the decision formally. Earlier this year, they chose not to appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision to the state Supreme Court.

Dunafon did not return a request for comment. In October, his attorney, Josh Weiss of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck, told Colorado Politics that Dunafon plans to appeal the ethics commission’s decision to the Denver District Court.

According to the Department of Law, legal expenses for the ethics commission lawsuit were $152,029 between 2018 and 2022. Through 2023, Glendale had paid over $2 million to litigate the case for Dunafon and the city.