DENVER -- The Legislative Audit Committee took the first step Tuesday toward auditing the state’s administrative leave program after a CALL7 investigation questioned why employees were paid for months without having to work.

“I thought there was a disparity that it would warrant the committee to consider a preliminary audit to see if we have real problems, which I anticipate we will see,” said Sen. David Schultheis, a Colorado Springs Republican who chairs the audit committee.

Schultheis wrote a letter citing the 7News report that showed the state paid about $1 million over the past three years to employees who were away from their jobs while the state investigated their potential misconduct. Some employees were paid to sit home for more than 10 months, like former prison Warden Ron Leyba.

“I wanted to go back to work,” Leyba told CALL7 Investigator John Ferrugia.

The investigation found taxpayers paid for more than 4,800 days of leave over three years, which amounts to 18 years of work time.

Schultheis asked auditors to compare offenses for putting people on administrative leave and the time spent on leave to see if it differs by department. He also would like to find out the times of the investigation and how discipline varied for similar offenses.

Rich Gonzales, executive director of the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration, refused to talk to Ferrugia for the initial story. So 7News caught up with him outside the hearing.

The DPA refused to provide detailed information to 7News about leave.

In a surprise move, the legislative audit committee asked the state auditor to determine if Gonzales, in conjunction with the state attorney general, violated the Colorado Open Records Act by refusing to turn over salary information of those on administrative leave to Call 7 Investigators.

Gonzales claims he was only following the AG’s recommendation, but he said he welcomes the review.

“People have a right to know and when there’s a suspected concern, I think they should do a review,” he said. “I wouldn’t call it an investigation yet. Investigation implies wrongdoing. I don’t know if we have ascertained that yet, but I think a review is warranted.”