House Ethics Committee opens Rule 49 review of complaint against Rep. Weinberg, sets evidence requests and Feb. 26 probable-cause deadline

The Colorado House Committee on Ethics on Feb. 8 convened to begin a Rule 49 review of an ethics complaint filed by Representative (Rep.) Bradley against Rep. Weinberg, setting a 30‑day timeline to determine whether probable cause exists that an ethical violation may have occurred.

"We take this very seriously," the committee chair said as she opened the meeting and turned the panel to staff from the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) for a Rule 49 overview. Christy Chase of OLLS told members the committee’s immediate duty is a probable‑cause determination based on the complaint, any answer by the respondent and documentary evidence the committee requests; the committee may not take witness testimony during this initial 30‑day stage.

Chase and OLLS Director Ed DiCecco reviewed the process and key dates: the ethics committee was appointed by the speaker on Jan. 27; the committee must complete its probable‑cause finding within 30 days of appointment (Feb. 26); and Rep. Weinberg may file an answer by Feb. 6. If the committee finds probable cause, Rep. Weinberg may request a hearing within seven days of notification and any evidentiary hearing must commence within 14 days of that request.

Legal staff also advised members on evidentiary limits and records obligations. The committee may consider documents, contemporaneous communications, audio and video and other non‑testimonial materials it requests, and it is not bound by court hearsay rules in evaluating such material. OLLS advised that many records the committee receives are likely subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), but noted potential statutory confidentiality for certain workplace‑harassment records.

After discussion, the chair ruled the committee’s proceedings will be governed by the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML), concluding that House Rule 49’s governance language and legislative practice favor transparency. Counsel noted Senate precedent interpreting similar language as consistent with applying the OML to legislative ethics committees.

The complaint before the committee lists multiple allegations (the document provided by counsel organizes them into 14 numbered items). OLLS described the principal categories presented by the complainant: alleged campaign‑finance violations and a separate complaint filed with the Secretary of State (OLLS cited a Feb. 27 hearing before the Secretary of State on that matter); a reported incident on the floor; allegations that Rep. Weinberg possessed a firearm while intoxicated; repeated workplace‑harassment or inappropriate remarks; alleged interactions in committee with another member; comments at a private event (the Brown Palace) and a series of allegations (items 7–14) that Rep. Weinberg stole or copied a master key and allowed others to use it, potentially implicating theft and trespass statutes as cited in the committee materials.

Committee members debated how broadly to cast evidence requests. For allegations that are time‑limited or tied to identifiable events, members proposed targeted requests to named custodians (for example, documents that formed the basis of the complaint, communications from Representative Bradley and her senior aide Jeff Patty, and materials produced to the Secretary of State). For allegations characterized as "nebulous"—notably repeated reports of smelling alcohol on Rep. Weinberg’s breath and repeated boasts that he carried a weapon—members discussed casting a wide net (asking current members, aides and certain staff for contemporaneous written communications) and posting a public notice in the Capitol soliciting contemporaneous written records from those present at the relevant times.

OLLS recommended the committee balance breadth with probative value and administrative burden. Legal staff said the office can compile publicly available SOS filings and news articles, make individual requests by letter signed by the chair, and, where necessary, pursue formal CORA requests for state‑held records (for example, state patrol video). Members specifically asked OLLS to seek Tracer campaign records, any documents Representative Weinberg submits in response to the SOS complaint (while pausing on some requests to Rep. Weinberg pending his answer), swipe‑key logs for a New Year’s‑Eve period and any audio/video available for committee hearings or in the areas identified in the complaint (including near Representative Kathy Hahn’s desk and Representative Luck/Luxe’s office).

OLLS said it will screen material for statutory confidentiality and apply redactions where required; privileged communications (for example, attorney‑client materials) need not be produced absent waiver.

By consensus the committee directed OLLS to compile and send the requested evidence solicitations to the identified custodians and to circulate a draft spreadsheet of requests to members for review. The chair said the committee will attempt to meet weekly and schedule extra sessions as needed to meet the Feb. 26 probable‑cause deadline.

The committee did not take any formal disciplinary action at the meeting; it adjourned after confirming next steps and scheduling plans.

What happens next: OLLS will send the committee’s document requests and report back with materials the committee has received; Rep. Weinberg may file an answer by Feb. 6; the committee must make a probable‑cause decision by Feb. 26. If the committee finds probable cause and a hearing is requested, an evidentiary hearing must commence within the statutory timeframe described in Rule 49.