What is a man's reputation worth to the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission? Precisely 31/2 hours and not a minute more.

If a public official accused of violating the state's ethics laws needs, say, a full day to put on his defense - to present witnesses, conduct cross-examinations and flesh out complex arguments critical to understanding his side of the case, the commission's response is - in a word - "tough."

Ah, but what if the other side uses only an hour of its allotted period? Could the defense's time be extended? Not on your life.

The ethics commission, which was created by Amendment 41 in 2006 and only got up and running last year, is hardly so busy that it must undermine justice in this brazen manner. And yet it has imposed the time limit on a March 6 hearing of a case involving U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-6th District, and well-publicized issues that arose during his tenure as secretary of state.

In his prior office, Coffman at one point had to punish a supervisor in the elections division for running a private political business on the side; the secretary of state was also stung by revelations that his political consultant's company had a contract with a voting machine manufacturer whose devices Coffman certified.

There are a number of reasons to be alarmed by the ethics commission's treatment of this case - beginning with the fact that the panel took it up at all. Amendment 41 grants the commission authority to investigate and issue opinions and penalties "on ethics issues arising under this [amendment] and under any other standards of conduct and reporting requirements as provided by law." But the complaint against Coffman, filed by the liberal group Colorado Ethics Watch, ranges far afield while accusing Coffman of outright violations of the criminal code.

If the allegations have merit, the district attorney should be involved. Yet when Ethics Watch tried to interest Denver DA Mitch Morrissey in the case of the moonlighting elections employee, Morrissey declined to pursue it. As Chief Deputy District Attorney Joseph Morales explained in a letter to Ethics Watch, "The trail of evidence . . . does not rise to the level of proof needed in a criminal case. . . . The evidence is inconclusive, and the complaint has been declined for criminal investigation."

In the broadest sense, any violation of any state rule, regulation or law could be seen as an ethical lapse. Is that how the Independent Ethics Commission intends to interpret its jurisdictional mandate? If so, heaven help us. The panel will be free to elbow into almost any controversy involving allegations of questionable behavior by public employees, including those already being handled through official channels.

We already know, for example, that Coffman's employee broke personnel rules by setting up his partisan private business because state auditors issued a report more than a year ago that said so - while also stating that Coffman "shares responsibility for these violations." However, auditors "found no evidence that the business benefited financially from the individual's employment with the Colorado Department of State." It's even less plausible to suggest that Coffman himself benefited from the business, yet that is what Ethics Watch contends. Now, incredibly, the ethics commission is determined to take this claim seriously while refusing to provide sufficient time for the defense.

Keep in mind that Coffman's attorney, Doug Friednash, must deal will all of Ethics Watch's claims in 31/2 hours. One of its allegations, for example, is that Coffman "engaged in 'corrupt conduct in the discharge' of his duties under the Election Code" in certifying electronic voting machines manufactured by Premier Elections Systems. The argument is that Coffman certified the machines against the advice of a panel of experts because Premier had a lobbying contract with the same political consulting firm that advised Coffman on his impending run for Congress.

As it happens, certifying election equipment is an immensely complex process. Presumably Friednash will attempt to demonstrate that Coffman had good reason to certify Premier's machines, despite the panel's advice, and that his office walled itself off from all outside influence, including from lobbyists. Yet Friednash's task is nearly hopeless given the allotted time and the other issues he must cover.

More than two years after voters passed the poorly drafted Amendment 41, we are finally going to see the ethics commission it created in action. The previews do not look promising.