Following an independent review, the University of Colorado Board of Regents decided on Friday to launch a second investigation into Regent Wanda James for reported policy violations, while also clearing Regent and board chair Callie Rennison of any wrongdoing.

The CU Regents launched an independent review into James in March after she reportedly tried to eliminate certain state funding for the Colorado School of Public Health.

Regent Frank McNulty said there are grounds to authorize a second investigation into James for “potential violations of regent policy” after certain information was uncovered in the initial review.

James strongly refuted the accusations, saying there is “no credible evidence whatsoever” to trigger an investigation.“This is nothing more than a racist attack on the lone Black regent for having the nerve to stand up for her community,” James said during a specially scheduled regent meeting Friday morning.

The university would not say what reason, cause or facts it has to launch this investigation into James. Until the investigation is completed, no details will be released, CU Vice President for Communication Michele Ames wrote in an email.

The regents launched an independent review into James in March after James, a marijuana dispensary owner, reportedly pushed to cut state funding from a CU campaign that provides education on the risks of high-potency marijuana. James raised concerns about what she said were racially insensitive images used in an educational campaign called “The Tea on THC,” produced by the Colorado School of Public Health at CU’s Anschutz Medical Campus.

“Today, a majority of Regents voted to advance a resolution that would begin the censure process against a fellow regent,” Regent Ken Montera wrote in a statement to the Daily Camera. “It is not a step that anyone takes lightly. It is important to note that the reason for this step is not that Regent James raised concerns about racism. In fact, Regent James found support and her criticisms were agreed to and addressed immediately. It’s her subsequent actions and public statements that merit this review.”

The Board added Rennison to the independent review in April after she was accused of receiving full-time pay for part-time work, which the board found to be false. Rennison said the matter began when a LinkedIn post shared online spread allegations related to her job as a professor at CU Denver, which she retired from in September.

Rennison said after Friday’s meeting that she’s happy to have this information shared publicly. She’s also happy to talk with anyone who has specific questions or lingering concerns.

“They were baseless, ridiculous allegations from the beginning and the investigation team did a great job,” Rennison said, adding, “There’s so much going on in higher ed, and while it’s important to look into certain allegations, I think it’ll be nice to be able to turn some of our attention back to taking care of CU. I think that’s really important.”

The board found that Rennison did not receive any special work allocations due to her position as a regent, did not receive special or preferential retirement treatment and did not use her status as a regent to influence the opening of a police training center or the hiring of a faculty candidate to manage said center. Rennison was also not consulted on leadership’s decision not to renew a faculty member’s teaching contract, nor did she use her position as a regent to influence that decision, according to a resolution the board approved on Friday morning.

“I believe that the investigation that was done around Regent Rennison was thorough and very clear,” Montera said during the meeting. “…I believe it’s critically important that we have the opportunity to clear our chair’s name and allow her to move forward as chair of the board and in her professional career as a credible professor and expert in her field of study.”

The board found that Rennison did not violate any regent laws and policies, and the matter was closed. McNulty said this is a “complete vindication of chair Rennison,” which proved the accusations were “unfounded” through personnel and other paper records.

The full report from the investigation into Rennison is available publicly online by visiting cu.diligent.community/Portal/MeetingInformation.aspx?Org=Cal&Id=590.

Regarding James, McNulty said the initial independent review identified potential violations of Regent Policy 2.J, or fiduciary obligations, which require regents to act in the best interest of the university.

“Having considered the report and the information that we have available to us, I do think that there are grounds to continue,” McNulty said.

The regents voted to pursue an investigation under Regent Policy 2.M, which is reprimand or censure of a board member. The Board of Regents can censure, meaning formally reprimand or condemn, a regent who is found to have violated their duties. Any consequences for a regent who is censured is the board’s decision.

A censure requires a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to occur, according to the policy. The investigation must include notice to the regent of the allegations and allow the regent an opportunity to respond in writing and review evidence. The board is also required to consider all matters regarding censure in a public meeting.

“To have this board consider any type of censure for the crime of speaking up against racist tropes from a $6 billion research university is very telling about the anti-blackness that exists throughout the University of Colorado,” James said. “There is absolutely no … place where I have violated any type of regent norms, regent policies or anything else. My crime is that I had the nerve to speak up against a predominantly white institution on causing harm to not just the Black community, but to Black students, Black faculty and to the university itself.”

James said the initial review was “based on innuendo and hearsay,” while McNulty said the information they had demanded an investigation.

“Regardless of the color of one’s skin, we’re all expected to uphold the same standards,” McNulty said in response to James’ allegations of racism. “And in a situation where there are questions such as we have here, the appropriate action is to pursue the facts and pursue them in a way that is indifferent to the particular regent.”

Regent Nolbert Chavez was the lone regent to vote no on launching the secondary investigation into James. James abstained from voting, as required per regent policy.