Opinion: Persistent pursuit of policies without public review irreparably corrupt | NOONAN

Colorado Politics, May 1, 2025

Douglas County citizens may vote on the most politically fraught propositions related to their governance since 1861 when the county was formed by the Colorado Territorial Legislature. The propositions, set in motion by the county’s three commissioners in March, will determine whether 380,000-plus residents turn to county home rule as their governing structure.

The three county commissioners, George Teal, Abe Laydon and Kevin Van Winkle, put up two home rule resolutions in a 10-minute special business meeting on March 25. The meeting was announced in compliance with the 24-hour notice of the Open Meeting Law (OML), but there was no public discussion or live-streaming of the session. After the 10-minute meeting, the commission held a press conference with Douglas County and other local government officials applauding the resolutions. Attending were George Brauchler, district attorney for the new 23rd Judicial District, and Jeffrey A. Garcia, county attorney.

What’s surprising about the special business meeting was its isolation from any public comment or input. Clearly, the commissioners had discussions and preparations before March 25, but none of these discussions or preparations were publicly announced before their “historic,” in their words, vote on their home rule resolutions. Those unannounced get-togethers are now the subject of an OML legal action taken by three Douglas County residents: Bob Marshall, current HD-43 representative in Highlands Ranch, Lora Thomas, former Douglas County Commissioner, and Julie Gooden, citizen.

The ins and outs of the acrimony among Douglas County Republican current and former commissioners form an epic narrative of many accusatory dimensions. OML plaintiff Thomas termed Laydon and Teal as “disrespectful” when she was a DougCo commissioner. One commissioner told her she lacked the mental capacity to serve. For most of us, that meets the standard for disrespectful. Laydon and Teal also evicted her from her county office about six weeks before her term ended. She took that as ill-mannered, to put it politely.

The commissioners’ arguments led Teal and Laydon to pursue investigations of Thomas’ actions as an elected official. The investigations cost Douglas County citizens thousands of dollars while finding her harmless of breaking rules of conduct.

A culminating controversy between Thomas v. Laydon and Teal involved water (isn’t water usually at the heart of these conflicts?) for Sterling Ranch via a billion-dollar pipeline from a groundwater aquifer in the San Luis Valley to Douglas County. Valley residents strenuously objected to the proposal. Thomas backed the farmers, ranchers and other residents who cited their agriculture economy relying on that same groundwater in drought conditions. Laydon and Teal wanted to spend $10 million on a study to determine if the water project supported by former Gov. Bill Owens would work. That study never got going.

Count one victory for Thomas. Fast forward to late 2024 and early 2025 when the three current DougCo commissioners were plotting their home rule resolutions. According to the OML lawsuit, the commissioners met numerous times with the county attorney and other DougCo staff to develop their proposal. According to the OML, when a majority of commissioners meet without public notice to discuss the public’s business, they violate the law. County Attorney Garcia should certainly have advised the commissioners of their violation. District Attorney Brauchler, an avid supporter of law and order, should certainly have second thoughts about supporting home rule resolutions developed without public input or analysis allegedly in violation of OML.

The details of the lawsuit are not encouraging for the county commissioners. It will certainly strain citizens’ credulity to believe the home rule resolutions were constructed out of thin air for the March 25 special business session. The lawsuit forces citizens to consider whether they want to trust these commissioners to have home rule authority when they have allegedly broken public trust in putting forth the resolutions without any public input or commentary.

Home rule gives the commissioners many powers currently limited by state regulations. The commissioners argue state regulations have destroyed property rights in the county and prevent these three individuals from governing the county their way. Unincorporated Highlands Ranch residents should think long and hard about giving so much authority to three people who will determine election rules, zoning, building regulations, water rights, land use, taxes, public safety policies and infrastructure resource allocations unfettered by limitations from the state. Other local governments will certainly experience changes in their relationships to the county.

Home rule counties allow commissioners to set their own salaries. These commissioners could allow an extension of their own terms in office.

If the court finds the commissioners went rogue, then the resolutions of March 25 would probably be vacated and the upcoming election for a home rule charter commission would not go forward. The county would have to pay legal fees to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

This ball is now with the courts. So many balls are with the courts these days. It feels like governance is coming apart at the seams. Rules and norms are ignored so elected officials can grab power to turn democracy inside out. When elected officials persistently pursue policies without public review, those policies are irreparably corrupt.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.