With a Wednesday deadline to vote on seven ethics allegations against Rep. Ron Weinberg, R-Loveland, the Colorado House Ethics Committee signaled that it is poised to dismiss most of the claims, including campaign finance, conduct and firearm-related accusations, while focusing its scrutiny on allegations tied to a 2025 incident at the Brown Palace and questions surrounding access to Capitol offices.

The committee signaled Monday that it is likely to dismiss several of the allegations in the complaint Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Roxborough Park, filed last July.

The first likely to go away: the campaign finance allegation. Bradley alleged Weinberg spent campaign money on personal items, such as clothing, cigars, haircuts and a donation to an Israeli soccer club.

But that is also the basis for an identical complaint Bradley filed with the elections division of the Secretary of State, less than two weeks after she submitted the ethics complaint to the House Speaker.

The complaint with the elections division was scheduled to be heard by an administrative law judge on Feb. 27, but the hearing is likely to be postponed due to Weinberg’s attorney’s unavailability for a medical procedure.

Rep. Javier Mabry, D-Denver, raised the question of whether the campaign finance issue is within the jurisdiction of the ethics committee. Candidates are subject to regulations on campaign finance enforced by the Secretary of State, he said. The process would continue whether someone was a member of the House or only a candidate, he explained. 

That was supported by fellow committee member Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta, who raised concerns about equal protection and whether a member of the House would be subjected twice to a campaign finance complaint by both the ethics committee and the elections division, when a candidate would not face the same process.

Committee Chair Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, didn’t quite see it the same way, pointing out that members can use campaign funds to pay for things in their elected capacity, which she called a gray area.

While Rep. Steven Woodrow, D-Denver, raised the possibility of using campaign funds inappropriately, which is not necessarily the case here, he indicated, the timeline the ethics committee is on – with votes on Wednesday – means they don’t have the time to do the kind of investigation the elections division can conduct. He suggested leaving the campaign finance issue to the Secretary of State’s office.

The second issue – Weinberg’s behavior toward Bradley – is also likely to go by the wayside. 

Bradley alleged Weinberg, who she said “smelled of alcohol,” was abusive to her during the 2023 session, including an incident in which he “screamed at me over a disagreement on a bill.” Bradley said she ran to an office and reported the incident to her legislative aide, Jeff Patty.

The committee noted that Weinberg’s wife, Carolyn, who is also his legislative aide, claimed Patty was the aggressor and that Weinberg did not consume any alcohol that day. 

They also noted the behavior did not appear to violate any ethical or statutory law, that Bradley did not file a workplace harassment complaint, and that Bradley did not provide any dates for the incident.

The third allegation, also likely to be dismissed, was on an allegation by Bradley that Weinberg said he carried a gun into the Capitol, in violation of a law passed in 2024, and that he was intoxicated at the time of the statement.

His aide at the time said Weinberg did not drink at the Capitol during the 2024 or 2025 sessions. Weinberg said in his response that he stopped carrying a firearm after the 2024 law was passed. 

Bradley did not provide a date for the incident, and the committee noted there wasn’t enough circumstantial or direct evidence showing Weinberg carried a firearm, other than his own statements.

The fourth allegation was on alleged statements Weinberg made to Bradley that she said were inappropriate and of a sexual nature.

That also could be covered under the legislature’s workplace harassment policy. But the committee noted that no complaint was filed by Bradley regarding those alleged statements.

Weinberg has said the accusations are “categorically false.” In addition, Carolyn Weinberg, who said she’s with him most of the time and has never witnessed any such behavior, was noted by the committee.

The committee had asked for evidence to support the allegation, but received none, according to McCormick.

Woodrow noted that this allegation, combined with another related to an incident at the Brown Palace at the end of the 2025 session, could constitute a trend and that neither allegation should be dismissed. He said he sees probable cause in this allegation. 

The fifth allegation relates to a 2025 hearing in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. Bradley alleged Weinberg was belligerent toward Rep. Stephanie Luck, R-Penrose, to the point that Bradley feared for Luck’s safety.

McCormick and Soper said they listened to the hearing. McCormick said there wasn’t a specific ethics violation they could cite in response to that allegation. 

She and Soper said that the hearing provided no evidence of any untoward behavior by Weinberg or any contentious comments.

“Those meetings sounded relatively tame to me,” McCormick said.

The sixth allegation is on the incident at the Brown Palace. Bradley alleged Weinberg made inappropriate sexual comments to two female House members. That would be an ethics complaint that falls under the legislature’s workplace harassment policy, the members noted.

The legislature’s human resources official conducted an investigation into the incident, an investigation sought by Weinberg, who claimed Bradley made the whole thing up.

The HR conclusion was that it was less likely than not that the witnesses’ statements were filed falsely to damage Weinberg’s reputation. The committee obtained a notarized statement from Bradley’s aide on the incident. 

McCormick noted there were letters and emails from other witnesses from that evening, including several lawmakers, who said the comments didn’t happen, as well as a photo showing Weinberg sitting across the table from Bradley. 

“There’s quite a bit of evidence on this one from a variety of sources,” McCormick said, and enough to lead her to believe there’s something there that could be considered sexual in nature and fit within the definition of sexual harassment. 

While there is no evidence for the fourth allegation, the sixth appears to relate to it and could be tied together as part of the same recurring theme, Mabry added.

The final allegation concerns the use of an alleged master key taken by Weinberg and potentially copied, which was used to turn on lights in his office, where the light switch was in Luck’s office. A separate incident took place on New Year’s Eve 2023, when Weinberg accessed the Capitol dome for a group of visitors. Photos taken by Weinberg that night showed them in the dome and in an office with a vault that wasn’t Weinberg’s.

While Bradley alleged Weinberg made a copy of the master key, Weinberg denied it, and the committee noted there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise from the Colorado State Patrol, which had access to cameras in the building that night. 

Woodrow noted Bradley claimed Weinberg committed theft when he took the master key, but he said he struggled with the theft claim, explaining it might be more of a trespass issue. 

As to the key to the dome, there’s a key that’s made available to lawmakers for that purpose, Mabry said, adding that the act of a lawmaker coming to the Capitol on New Year’s Eve is not problematic for him. 

What stood out for him, however, was the office with the vault. 

There are a number of offices in the state Capitol that have old vaults, many of which house lawmakers. Woodrow said he believed the office in question was the caucus room for House Republicans. 

That issue rose to the level of probable cause, the committee indicated.

The committee will meet again on Wednesday to vote on motions regarding the allegations.