Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) received legal advice during closed session on February 18 during their monthly meeting to open an investigation into Commissioner Medina’s actions related to IEC complaint 24-16 instead of considering Medina’s Motion to Dismiss, which was filed in mid-January, as reported by the Pagosa Springs SUN.
The Commission stated that the IEC Commissioners had received Ms. Medina’s motion to dismiss and have been briefed on the contents after stating they would open an investigation.
The IEC had placed complaint 24-16 and consideration of Ms. Medina’s Motion to Dismiss on the January 2025 monthly meeting agenda, but it was not considered because the meeting fell within the legally allotted time for the complainant to respond. Complainant responded to Ms. Medina’s Motion to Dismiss on February 2, 2025. Complainant asked for the IEC to refuse Ms. Medina’s Motion to Dismiss, citing most of the motion to dismiss as “irrelevant” and that “counsel [representing Medina] did not respond to pertinent facts.”
The complaint, originally filed June 15, 2024, alleges that Ms. Medina acted as a dual agent for her employing brokers at EXIT Realty when conducting official business of the board, citing CRS 24-18-103, which states a government official must work for the benefit of the People of Colorado only, and can not have conflicting agency with a private business or entity. The response to the Motion to Dismiss alleges Ms. Medina violated CRS 24-18-109(2)b and states the law is in the form of an either/or statement: “The law appears to state an either/or condition in which an official must recuse themselves; the commissioner must either have a substantial financial interest or is engaged as counsel, consultant, representative, or agent….Respondent does not need to benefit personally from her official acts, but merely needs to be acting in agency for another principal other than the public to whom their interests are benefited or supersede the public interest.”
The response continues to reference a myriad of laws that are alleged to be violated by Ms. Medina’s conduct concerning the purchase of land for the construction of an administrative building in 2024, including several official acts where Ms. Medina refused to disclose her conflict of interest to the public, failing to recuse herself from votes with conflicting interests, unduly influencing fellow board members, and failing to notify the state of the potential conflict of interest. Failure to notify the state can result in misdemeanor charges. The IEC may impose punishments if Ms. Medina is found guilty of the alleged misconduct, including fines, censure or reprimanding, referral for criminal prosecutions, and other sanctions.
The response provides a further basis in law that Ms. Medina is currently an agent for EXIT Realty and that she was required to recuse herself from voting when business before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) involved the company. “Her contract is with employing brokers Shelley Low and Jessica Low, and Jessica is responsible for the brokerage. This is a contracted agency under DORA’s Rules Regarding Real Estate Brokers as well as meets the definition of ‘agent’ according to CRS-15-14-702.”
The response continues with the definition of “Associate Broker” according to the law as, “a broker who holds an Associate Broker level license and works under the supervision of the Employing Broker….in which her actions as an agent shall not be construed to limit the employing broker’s or firm’s responsibility to supervise licensees employed by the broker or firm
nor to shield the broker or firm from vicarious liability (CRS 12-10-408(e)(II))….The relationship between Shelley Low as the owner of the company that supervises Respondent and allows her to enter into contracts on their behalf relates substantially to this complaint.”
An additional response to Ms. Medina’s affidavit states, “Respondent is not self-employed according to DORA….She is an Associate Broker engaged in employment under a contract with EXIT Realty according to the Rules Regarding Real Estate Brokers. Respondent has misrepresented her Independent Contractor employment status with being an Independent Broker by DORA. She does not hold or maintain an Independent Broker license and does not hold a license level with DORA that would allow her to work for herself.”
The response concludes by asking the IEC to disregard the conclusory statements of what is true in respondent’s motion, citing it is the purview of the IEC — not the respondent — to decide whether there is a conflict of interest based on evidence.
“The evidence provided is supported with dates, quotations and publications of recordings that support the allegations that respondent has a conflict of interest and has refused to acknowledge agency with EXIT Realty to the public.”