Ethics Enforcement: Commission on Judicial Discipline The Colorado constitution created a commission on judicial discipline and made it responsible for investigating allegations that a judge violated ethics rules. The commission investigates allegations and prosecutes these charges. Membership Commission members are drawn from judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers selected by the governor and the supreme court. Recommendations The commission makes recommendations about discipline to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes the final decision on whether and how to discipline a judge. Secrecy Discipline Commission proceedings are secret. If a judge is found to have violated the ethics rules, their discipline can be public or private. If private, the violation remains a secret. Only if the Supreme Court approves public discipline will it be known to voters. How effective is the discipline process? "For 28 continuous years, there was no public judicial discipline in Colorado." The Judicial Integrity Project commentary Go To Story 2019-2023: The Discipline Commission issued 3 times as many sanctions as in all of the prior half-century. SMART Hearing SMART Hearing Testimony, Discipline Commission, 1/18/23 Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story For more information about the process, visit the Discipline Commission's website Link to Discipline Commission Website

Judge Debra Gunkel To Story To Story Recommended for retention by voters To Review

Chief Justice Brian Boatright Chief Justice Boatright led the judiciary's response to the series of scandals erupting over the last several years. Media reports indicate years of obstruction by the court and by Justice Boatright individually. Like many of the examples of misbehaving judges on this site, Justice Boatright has been recommended for retention by the performance commission without addressing the misconduct reported below. Follow this link to Justice Boatright's 2024 Judicial Performance Commission recommendation: This linked report details how Justice Boatright obstructed and delayed the referral of alleged wrongdoers to prosecutors. This coverup prevented prosecutors from charging them. In turn, Justice Boatright's personal involvement was shielded from being exposed. Read the report here (especially pages 9-10 and 20) : This section contains other reports of his misbehavior that were omitted from the 2024 evaluation. Boatright - Judicial Performance Evaluation.pdf Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Boatright misconduct "The people of Colorado deserve a judiciary that they know is being held accountable ... regardless of title or position." - Chief Justice Boatright, 2/16/2021 To Story To Story "the chief justice ... quietly met in a Denver parking garage ... to discuss the ... press for information in the [Commission's] inquiry." The chief justice said he "doesn't want to give it easily." To Story February, 2021 "I am committed to getting to the truth of the allegations that have damaged the public's perception of our critically important work." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/18/2021 August, 2022 To Story To Story February, 2021 "we need to ensure that any allegation of wrongdoing is fully investigated and if wrongdoing is found, that there is full accountability regardless of anyone's position." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/4/2021 August, 2022 To Story To Story "Members of the Colorado Supreme Court, directly and through its senior staff, made a series of decisions and took a series of actions throughout 2021 and 2022 that limited the ability of the commission ... to do its constitutionally mandated work." Link to Story To Story Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.10 (A) "A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. " Just as the Masias Contract Affair was coming into public view, the justices of the Colorado Supreme Court issued the following public statement: "The notion that former Chief Justice Coats and his counsel Andrew Rottman -- both dedicated public servants -- would ever authorize the use of state resources to silence a blackmailer is simply false." Ethics complaint filed against Justice Boatright At the very outset of the scandal, the Supreme Court justices demonstrated that they had prejudged the facts of the case - despite their position as ultimate deciders of the controversy - and the strong liklihood of their personal involvement in the matter. Consequently, at least one person (a retired chief judge) filed an ethics complaint with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Link to the Ethics Complaint The discipline commission dismissed the complaint in 2024. They gave no real explanation. To Commentary

Evaluating Judges: Performance Commissions Each judge faces a vote of the public on whether they should be retained in office 2 years after being appointed and at regular intervals after that (4, 6, 8, or 10 years depending on the court). Colorado created performance commissions to help voters decide whether to keep the judge on the bench. The commission evaluates the information available to it and reports its recommendations to the voters in the bluebook. In theory, the commissions provide accountability that is independent of influence by the judiciary or outside politics. Does the system below do that? Review the Cases & Controversies examples of judicial misconduct. Can you find one where a judicial performance commission warned voters about a misbehaving judge? Cases & Controversies The members of the Judicial Performance Commissions are lawyers and nonlawyers as well as members of each major political party. The state supreme court influences the selection of members. Also, each commission meets privately with the chief judge of the district at the start of their work. Reports After reviewing the information available to it, the Performance Commission prepares a report summarizing the judge's performance. And it provides its recommendation to Colorado voters on whether the judge meets performance guidelines and should stay on the bench. The report and recommendation is published to voters in the voter's guide ("bluebook"). How effective are Performance Commission evaluations? Go To Story Story As this is written and an election approaches, we voters in Colorado have no idea ho w these investigations came out. As you cast your vote for or against a judge, do you wonder if the judge was investigated? Was that judge cleared or did they break the law they are supposed to be applying to others? Why doesn't the bluebook tell you? Regarding the high ratings given to Colorado judges . . . "In ... Lake Woebegon, all the children were above average --- statistically impossible." To Commentary Jon Caldara, Columnist Go To Story Go To Story "Did you vote to retain the judge [disciplined last year] who promoted extensive drinking among court staff, which led to a sexual relationship with a staff member?" Expose the records of Colorado's judges , Gazette Commentary by Chris Forsyth, October 28, 2020 Go To Story Go To Story In 2023, the Discipline Commission reported that it had taken "corrective action" against 250 judges throughout its history. How many of these "corrections" were known to the Performance Commissions for its review or by voters when they cast their votes? 2022 Annual Report, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline at 21-22. Go To Report Tim Masters was wrongfully convicted of murder in Fort Collins, Colorado. Two prosecutors in the case would ultimately be disciplined for misconduct. While the allegations of misconduct were pending, the two passed Nominating Commission vetting to become judges. They were then endorsed by the Performance Commission for retention. However, voters overruled the Nominating Commission and Performance Commission recommendations, removing both from office. Was this the system working or its failings being overcome by the voters? Learn More For more information about the process, visit the Performance Commission's website Performance Commission Website

Masias Contract Whistleblowers During the Masias contract investigations, a group of potential whistleblower witnesses were under threat of criminal prosecution. They never spoke to RCT or ILG investigators. Just as the statute of limitations was running, they were referred to the Denver District Attorney to be charged. However, the Judicial Department held back large portions of the investigative files, such that the DA could not investigate or prosecute. Read about it here: To Story "If you didn't have these whistle-blowers and ... press ..., where might this have landed?" - quoting State Senate President Garcia Story

Judge Ryan Kamada To Document Story Story Story

The Masias Contract Affair Mindy Masias was a high-ranking administrator in the Colorado judicial branch. She was terminated for financial misdealings and then given a two-million-dollar no-bid contract. The judicial department's top administrator would later allege the contract was part of an effort to cover up allegations of judicial misconduct. Years of investigations would follow. The Colorado Supreme Court would repeatedly be accused of obstructing them and would launch its own. Some allegations would be confirmed. The judicial department's investigators would argue that some were unfounded. After everything was said and done, the Masias contract was clearly improper but the investigations left responsibility for it muddy. The final result also seemed to confirm widespread and continuing efforts by the judicial branch to cover up allegations of misconduct that are made against judges. 2019 "The seven Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice Coats, approved of Masias' contract, as well as its cancellation" "[Controller Dukes resigned] out of disgust for this whole thing." Link to Story Story The investigation would start in July 2019, but the Justices and their lawyers would withhold the infamous Memo until February 2021 when the Denver Post first revealed its existence to the public. Story 2020 Link to Editorial The Masias contract "degrades the public trust" and "gives the appearance of impropriety and appears to be a violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct." Story The Auditor reached these 2020 conclusions without the Judiciary revealing the existence of the now infamous Memo, which had been known to the justices since 2019 Nine judicial department employees received buyouts totaling $518,000. Story 2021 Story Story "Any other person present ... isn't talking. Two have non-disclosure agreements" Ethics Rule 2.10 A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court As a result of this apparent violation of judicial ethics, an ethics complaint was filed. Link to Ethics Complaint Eventually, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing. Colorado Supreme Court Justices publicly stated at the outset of the investigation into the Masias Contract Affair: "The notion that former Chief Justice Coats and his counsel Andrew Rottman -- both dedicated public servants -- would ever authorize the use of state resources to silence a blackmailer is simply false." Story "The Judicial Department has refused to release the memo [listing examples of alleged coverups]" Story "Destruction of evidence, payoffs to keep harassment victims silent and repeated efforts to simply look the other way ... permeated ... Judicial ... for years." By the time the Justices decided to release the Memo to investigators in 2021, the Justices had been keeping it secret from investigators for about 1.5 years. Story "These allegations must be investigated in full view of the public until trust in our judiciary is no longer in question," stated State Senate and House leaders "If you didn't have these whistle-blowers and ... press ..., where might this have landed?" - quoting State Senate President Garcia Story "We [the Colorado Bar Association] urge the Colorado Judicial Department to be fully transparent and to take the necessary steps to redress these issues promptly, in order to maintain the public's faith in the administration of justice in Colorado." February 11, 2021 Story One of these lawyers fighting to keep the secrets of the Memo would later be put on the court of appeals through a committee chaired by the Chief Justice, his client. Story "The memo paints a picture of a broken system. Judges ... operated with impunity - which is rich coming from those we trust with doling out justice. ... The memo itself was secret for almost two years." Story Story "The [discipline commission] says it was in the dark about the claims of ... misbehavior and harassment from judges going ... uninvestigated." Story Story Story Story But, once selected, the investigators would be directed and controlled by the Justices. Story Justice Gabriel Story Story Later, behind closed doors, the Justices would overrule the committee and restrict the investigators, barring examination of some critical topics. The Constitution of Colorado assigns investigation of judge misconduct complaints to the Discipline Commission. By assigning their own lawyers to investigate the allegations, the Justices replaced the Constitutional process with investigators they would control. Reporting over the coming years would reveal that, at the same time, the Justices and their people were blocking the Constitutional investigators. Learn More Story Story Story Story Story Story "the most important question is ... whether the public can trust that the Judicial Department is taking this problem seriously" Story 2022 Story "This ... is an epic clash ... a critical showdown of Constitutional authority." Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Story Report of Judicial Department's Lawyer, RCT RCT's Report Story Story Investigators agree goal of the contract was to "keep Mindy happy" Story Story Story Story "Judicial was in full control of the investigations." Story 2023 Story Story Chief Justice Nathan "Ben" Coats was Publicly Censured for his Role in the Masias Contract Affair. Read the details here: 2023-08-07 People v. Coats - 23SA114.pdf Shortly after the recommendation to publicly censure the former chief justice, the membership of the Discipline Commission was changed. Story

Selecting Judges in Colorado: Nominating Commissions Each judicial district in the state has a nominating commission to nominate three candidates for any judicial opening in that district. A separate statewide commission selects appellate nominees. Commission members are a mix of lawyers and nonlawyers balanced between the political parties. In theory, the nominating commissions exist to insulate the rule of law from politics and influence. Every commission is chaired and directed by a justice of the state supreme court. The result is that the Colorado Supreme Court has direct influence over the process through its authority to appoint commission members and chair commission meetings. Judges and the justices also routinely endorse individual applicants. Picking the Judge The nominating commission sends 2-3 candidates to the governor. The governor then selects from among them, appointing a judge to fill the vacancy. Justices and judges routinely lobby for preferred nominees in this final selection stage. How effective is the screening done by Nominating Commissions? Go To Story Go To Story Tim Masters was wrongfully convicted of murder in Fort Collins, CO. Two prosecutors in the case would ultimately be disciplined for misconduct. While the allegations of their misconduct were pending, the two passed Nominating Commission vetting to become judges. However, voters overruled the Nomination Commission and removed both from office. Was this the system working or were its failings being overcome by the voters? Go To Story Go To Story In 2022, seven years after the Nominating Commission process finished, the lawyers hired by the judiciary would declare, without interviewing the accuser, that the 2013 allegations of harassment were "unfounded." Review the substance of their report in the "Reports" section of this site and decide for yourself if that conclusion is supported. Regardless of a 2022 conclusion, did the Nomination Commission process function adequately half a dozen years earlier when they were never informed of the allegations? Go To Story In 2023, the Colorado Judicial Discipline Commission reported that, throughout the history of the commission, 85 judges had stepped down in the face of ethics charges. That does not count the type of cases reported above. All of them had been endorsed by the Nominating Commission process. -Source : 2022 Annual Report, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, p. 22 For more information about the nominating process, visit the Nominating Commissions' website Nominating Commission Website

Justices Gabriel and Hart Justices Gabriel and Hart were accused of racial discrimination in hiring for the courts. The Colorado Supreme Court promised the People of Colorado to investigate this allegation and the others in the Memo. In the end, the Supreme Court prohibited its investigators from looking at the racial discrimination allegations against two of its own. "The people of Colorado deserve a judiciary that they know is being held accountable ... regardless of title or position." - Chief Justice Boatright 2/16/2021 To Story To Story To Story February 2021 "we are retaining the services of an outside investigator to conduct an independent review of all of the allegations mentioned in the memo ." - Colorado Supreme Court 2/8/2021 July 2022 "[Memo Item 5] 'Current pending EEOC complaint against two justice [Hart and Gabriel]' [Judiciary's Investigator] ILG was instructed not to investigate this matter" -Chief Justice Boatright 7/11/2022

Judge Kiesnowski's case is similar to Judges Woods and Scipione. The Judge engaged in long-term harassment of an employee and enjoyed the protection of the judiciary for years. Despite these years of harassing an underling, in his last evaluation, the Judicial Performance Commission recommended that voters retain Judge Kiesnowski. To Story To Story To Story To Evaluation

Transparency February 2021 August 2022 Compare "we need to ensure that any allegation of wrongdoing is fully investigated and if wrongdoing is found, that there is full accountability regardless of anyone's position." - Chief Justice Brian Boatright, February 4, 2021 To Story "The people of Colorado deserve a judiciary that they know is being held accountable ... regardless of title or position." Chief Justice Boatright, February 16, 2021 To Story "If you didn't have these whistle-blowers and ... press ..., where might this have landed?" - quoting State Senate President Garcia Story To Story To Story Secret Revealed One Cost To Story To Story To Story "We urge the Colorado Judicial Department to be fully transparent" -- Statement of the Colorado Bar Association, February 11, 2021 To Story Compare February 2021 "Today, we met as a court and viewed the memo for the first time ." - official statement by Colorado Supreme Court -February 8, 2021 (emphasis supplied) June 2022 To Story In 2020, the State Auditor found an "appearance of impropriety" in contracting with Masias. To Story It did so without the now infamous Memo, which had been withheld from the Auditor until 2021. To Story "Colorado's Judicial branch is the 'black ops' of government." To Story To the Editorial "The memo itself was secret for almost two years, until ... Ryan blew the whistle" To Story To Story February 2021 Compare August 2022 "nobody wants these investigations to go forward more than I do ... My promise ... to all of Colorado ... We're going to get this right." -Chief Justice Brian Boatright 2/16/21 To Story To Story February 2021 Compare July 2022 "we are retaining the services of an outside investigator to conduct an independent review of all of the allegations mentioned in the memo ." - Colo Supreme Court, February 2, 2021 "[Memo Item 5] 'Current pending EEOC complaint against two justice [of the supreme court]' [Judiciary's Investigator] ILG was instructed not to investigate this matter" -Chief Justice Boatright, July 11, 2022 To Story February 2021 August 2022 "I am committed to getting to the truth of the allegations that have damaged the public's perception of our critically important work." -Chief Justice Brian Boatright February 18, 2021 To Story Compare To Story To Story To Story "[Settled] lawsuit ... alleges officials failed to investigate and then retaliated against a judicial assistant who reported that a judge sexually assaulted ... her." "Executive director calls lack of records matching recent revelations 'puzzling.'" To Law Week To Story "Every woman that [brings forward mistreatment] -- they've all been laid off, written up, disciplined, pushed out, moved over ..." To Story "Supreme Court Justice Richard Gabriel faced sexual harassment accusation while a candidate for Colorado's high court--Agreement with accuser kept the issue from tainting his chances, memo says" This was the headline in the Denver Post on 2/26/2021. The detailed original story is now difficult to find. It was replaced with a statement that the charges were later determined to be "unfounded." This refers to the report of the Judicial Dept.'s lawyers, ILG. Is the unavailability of the original detailed story a reflection of transparency or the power of the Justice to suppress the story? After a careful review of the Memo's accusation, the original story, and the objective facts stated by ILG: Was the allegation founded or unfounded? Was the harassment claim suppressed? Was the removal of the story consistent or inconsistent with the original accusation in the Memo? Learn More View Story While it Lasts To Story "given the climate of fear and intimidation that had been created ... employees never voiced their concerns." To Story "I didn't want to create a paper trail for the chief [justice], so I'll trust you'll know the best way to keep him informed." To Story To Story To Story To Story To Story To Story "[the investigator] found ... employees 'broadly feared' retaliation for filing misconduct complaints" To Story To Story "Judicial controlled the ... [investigation] contracts" To Story "What can you do with a redacted report? It was a setup from the start." To Story

Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart said: "Hold us accountable." September 27, 2023, Access to Justice presentation Cases & Controversies Read about examples of misconduct by individual judges and high-profile controversies involving Colorado's judiciary. Consider how well our current system deals with misbehaving judges. Cases & Controversies Culture of Silence within Colorado's Judiciary Learn about how witnesses of judge misconduct have been silenced, and understand the challenges whistleblowers, victims of judicial misconduct, and proponents of reforming our judiciary face in Colorado. Culture of Silence Merit Selection Learn how Colorado selects, evaluates, and disciplines our judges. How Colorado selects, evaluates, and disciplines judges Opinions & Reforms Review commentaries published by thought leaders of Colorado about reforming our systems for judicial accountability, reform proposals, and the latest reform legislation. Opinions & Reforms Resources Review original reports of investigations and other source documents. Resources