The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission has developed a series of draft rules for handling ethics complaints against public officials that, for the most part, are both sensible and easy to understand.

Problem is, we can't square several of those rules with Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution, aka Amendment 41.

The five-member panel may well adopt the rules on an emergency basis as early as its next scheduled meeting on Friday. But even if the rulemaking process continues for several more weeks, the commissioners should scrap those provisions that conflict with the plain language of the constitution - in other words, the parts that would let the commission shirk some of its duties.

Should the final rules strongly resemble the current draft, the watchdog group Colorado Ethics Watch is one of several parties threatening to sue the commission. If that happens, we believe the courts would be obliged to require a new set of guidelines that hew to the basic mandates of Amendment 41.

The amendment clearly states that the commission can dismiss frivolous complaints. Beyond that, it says, "The commission shall conduct an investigation, hold a public hearing, and render findings on each non-frivolous complaint pursuant to written rules adopted by the commission" (our emphasis).

Seems straightforward to us.

The rules under consideration make several noncontroversial clarifications. They say the commission "shall" dismiss frivolous complaints, along with complaints for behavior outside the commission's jurisdiction (the commission has no authority, for instance, to investigate traffic offenses). It may also dismiss complaints against people who are no longer public officials or government employees at the time the complaint was filed. So far, so good.

Beyond that, the rules go astray. They allow the commission to dismiss complaints that allege "de minimis" ethical violations; allegations that include ethical violations involving criminal behavior; allegations that are also pending "before another body with concurrent jurisdiction," including the ethics review process the legislature has established to discipline its own members.

And here's the kicker: The commission may dismiss a complaint if, "within its discretion, [the commission] determines that dismissal is warranted."

Now that's a lot of leeway.

For that matter, what would distinguish a "de minimis" complaint from one with substance? Why should the ethics commission not investigate a public official accused of, say, taking a bribe after criminal charges have been filed? And why should a lawmaker facing a legislative ethics probe - which rarely if ever includes penalties - not also be subject to sanctions by the ethics commission?

As we've said before, Amendment 41 is crudely written. It's a policy sledgehammer allowing the ethics commission little wiggle room.

That's a big reason we argued against the amendment's passage. Had the language of 41 been adopted as a statute, separate enabling legislation could have given the commission some flexibility to use its judgment when presented with complaints charging trivial offenses.

But Amendment 41 is in the constitution. Its language is unambiguous. The ethics commission should not be allowed to wish away a significant portion of its responsibilities.

If the commission finds itself bogged down investigating a host of seemingly inconsequential allegations, then there's a clear remedy: Ask voters to modify or repeal Amendment 41.

Otherwise, the commissioners could themselves be charged with abandoning their constitutional duties and abusing the public trust.