A Colorado House workplace harassment committee last week reviewed a complaint filed with the General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Workplace Relations, the first time such a filing has been submitted to the formal process the legislature set up in 2019.

According to Ben FitzSimons, director of the legislative workplace office, complaints can be filed against lawmakers or partisan staff. That category can encompass caucus staff, aides, interns or partisan volunteers.

The committee discussed the complaint in a closed-door executive session, and then asked for an independent third-party investigation. Lawmakers did not disclose who the complaint was against.

FitzSimons told Colorado Politics during the 2023 session that “unless a legislator is found to have violated the workplace harassment policy, specifics regarding complaints and the identities of those involved is confidential.”

“If an investigation concludes that a legislator violated the policy, an executive summary of the report is made available to the public, including the name of the legislator,” he said.

The workplace harassment complaint system was set up in September 2019, with a separate committee for each chamber.

It came more than a year after a report commissioned by the General Assembly found “there have been “real problems of harassment in the General Assembly that have negatively impacted lives, careers and the wellbeing of members of the legislative workplace.”

The report based on 528 survey responses found almost 30% reported having seen or experienced harassment, while 50% of respondents said they observed “sexist behavior and/or reported episodes of seriously disrespectful behavior.”

The report, conducted by the Denver-based Investigations Law Group, recommended a stand-alone human resources department, now the Office of Legislative Workplace Relations, along with a process and policy for handling complaints.

To date, the office has received 10 complaints but none moved to a formal resolution process that would have put it in front of the House or Senate committees.

In 2019-20, seven complaints were received. Five were addressed through “an informal process,” according to the 2019-20 report. A sixth resulted in no action at the request of the complainant, and the seventh was not based on any protected classes or affiliations.

In 2020-21, one complaint was received, but resulted in no action at the request of the complainant.

In 2021-22, the most recent year for which reports are available, two complaints were received. One resulted in no action at the request of the complainant, and the other complaint that was not based on any protected classes or affiliations.

The system of dealing with workplace harassment came out of the 2018 session. Rep. Steve Lebsock, D-Thornton, was expelled for sexual harassment against a fellow lawmaker and four other women, allegations found credible by a third-party investigation. He was the first lawmaker expelled since 1915, when Rep. William Howland was thrown out for committing perjury during a bribery investigation.

The May 25 meeting of the House committee began with selection of a chair and vice-chair. Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont was chosen chair and Rep. Ryan Armagost, R-Berthoud, was chosen vice-chair. The committee is six members, with three from each caucus.

FitzSimons then explained the process, given that it’s the first time the legislative committee has been convened to review a complaint.

If a complaint is filed against a lawmaker or partisan staff, and the complainant chooses to use a formal resolution process, then the Office of Legislative Workplace Relations notifies the committee.

In the formal resolution process, the committee looks at whether the complaint falls within the scope of the policy. If it does, the office either conducts the investigation or hires a third-party investigator, at the committee’s discretion.

Once the report is completed, the committee determines whether the workplace harassment policy has been violated. If that is the case, the committee would then submit to the complainant, respondent and caucus leadership an executive summary.

The committee also would recommend a range of corrective actions based on the investigation, FitzSimons explained. Any corrective action would fall to caucus or chamber leadership for implementation, or to the supervising member, in the case of staff.

Details of complaints are confidential, as are records related to those complaints, Fitzsimons added.

The committee then met in executive session to review the complaint.

“The evidence that we heard falls within the scope,” McCormick said upon the conclusion of the executive session.

That became the first of three motions approved by the committee, including the hiring of a third-party investigator. No timeline was identified by the committee for the investigation process.