Each year, state agencies field hundreds of civil and administrative complaints against individuals through consumer-protection programs and boards that regulate licensed professionals.
The public might never know the names of the accused if those agencies determine the complaints are unfounded or decide not to investigate, if a proposal before the state Senate Judiciary Committee today becomes law.
Advocates for transparency in government have made an uneasy truce with the latest version of House Bill 1036 after recent amendments that whittled down its scope, but they still see potential transparency issues down the road.
The attorney general’s office brought the bill to the legislature after the state appeals court ruled that the rules that keep parts of criminal investigations private don’t apply to civil and administrative complaints.
“A complaint is not the same as a conviction. That’s the impetus behind the bill,” said attorney general spokesman Mike Saccone.
HB 1036 would keep all files related to ongoing investigations private, unless they are internal investigations into an employee of the agency.
Any complaint that is sustained will remain open to the public. In uninvestigated or meritless complaints, the names and identifying information of the accused, the complainant and any witnesses could be redacted at the agency’s discretion.
Before the amendments, the original bill would have made private a wider swath of information from the state level down to local police forces.
“(The amendments) made the bill a lot better and gave us a lot less reason to oppose it,” said Denise Maes, public policy director for the Colorado ACLU. “Greater transparency is always better but there’s a balance between a person’s right to privacy and the right to transparency.”
Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com
