The House Ethics Committee voted on Wednesday to accept three allegations filed against Rep. Ron Weinberg, R-Loveland, but combined two into one subject area.

The two issues involve inappropriate comments made to female lawmakers in two separate incidents and the alleged use of a master key to access restricted areas of the state Capitol without permission.

The allegations were contained in a July ethics complaint filed against Weinberg. There were seven in all, including several incidents of alleged inappropriate comments made to female lawmakers, alleged use of campaign funds for personal items, and alleged use of a master key.

The committee voted unanimously, though not without lengthy discussion, to dismiss the allegation that campaign funds were used for personal items. The members noted that the complaint is being handled by the Secretary of State’s office and is scheduled to proceed to an administrative hearing.

Ethics committee chair Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, raised the issue of whether the campaign finance allegations fall under Amendment 41 jurisdiction, noting that the amendment states elected officials should avoid conduct that violates the public trust, and that any effort to realize financial gain violates that trust.

She said she believed the allegation violated both the language and spirit of Amendment 41, but then asked what they should do about that.

Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta, said the right thing to do would be to yield to the other jurisdiction. Rep. Javier Mabry, D-Denver, added that he didn’t see the committee’s job as determining whether it violated Amendment 41, just whether it violated the House’s own ethical standards.

On counts two, three and five, which alleged inappropriate comments made by Weinberg to Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Roxborough Park; a claim by Bradley that Weinberg said he carried a firearm, a statement he allegedly made while intoxicated, according to Bradley; and a heated exchange with Rep. Stephanie Luck, R-Penrose, in a House committee hearing, the committee voted unanimously to dismiss the three allegations. They primarily cited a lack of evidence from Bradley. On the latter, two members said they listened to the committee hearing in question and said they did not hear anything that would rise to an ethical violation. McCormick said Monday that the conversation sounded “pretty tame” to her.

Filing an ethics complaint over an argument in committee could have a potential chilling effect, said Rep. Steven Woodrow, D-Denver. “People get heated in committee,” and sometimes the line of respect is crossed.

“We basically work in a war zone,” added Soper. “To expect members to always be cool, calm, and collected is beyond a reasonable person’s standard.”

The issues that did move forward: counts four and six, both related to inappropriate sexual comments allegedly made by Weinberg. One incident involved Bradley; another occurred at the Brown Palace at the end of the 2025 session.

The committee voted unanimously to combine the two counts into one and to state that there was probable cause that an ethics violation had occurred.

The final count was on the alleged use of a master key to access Luck’s office, to turn on lights for the rest of the offices, and access to parts of the Capitol on New Year’s Eve 2023.

The committee found probable cause on that claim as well.

The committee has no further meetings scheduled. However, that could change, since Weinberg has the right to request a hearing within the next seven days.

If he does not, the committee would meet again to come up with recommendations for House leadership.