Image
Image Link 11/19/2015

County Services Sacrificed for Personal Gain

The skanky behind the scenes background that Rowland and Gateley don't want voters to know about...

Look at the evidence. Can one draw any other conclusion?

One could argue that all public affairs are political in nature. Everything and everyone is politically motivated. So what? Does it matter? If you are extreme in your political views, either way, it probably matters to you, a lot. Extremists are currently running the government in Elbert County. They are dismissive of the laws governing them and now the courts will sort it out, and at your expense.

Lead Commissioner Robert Rowland is willing to take down everyone around him while blubbering about how unfair it all is. It is nothing more than the haters, the obstructionists, the thorns in his side, bitter small minded people that lost elections that are trying to destroy the county. Let’s look at the destruction and consider who has caused it.

Commissioner Robert Rowland and county attorney Wade Gateley, convinced that an FCPA (Fair Campaign Practices Act) violation charge from a private citizen was politically motivated and that two courts’ findings of guilt and appropriate penalty are wrong, continue to spend taxpayers’ dollars trying to find relief for a $1000 fine! They think the taxpayers should pay the fine and all attorneys’ fees. The law does not support their beliefs, however.

Rowland and Gateley argue that elected officials are protected just because they are elected officials; they are immune. The Colorado State Constitution affords them protection under a sovereign immunity clause. If they break the laws while conducting government business they consider is in the best interest of the county taxpayers, they are protected. The other two commissioners have drunk the punch concocted by these two. But, it seems the elixir is starting to wear off…. Read on.

But, just in case they aren’t really protected, they invented their own protection clause by claiming to have legally passed two resolutions (Resolution 15-10 & Resolution 15-11) granting themselves indemnity from any punitive financial penalties in this already decided case and in another pending lawsuit. Complicit in these indemnification acts, were fellow commissioners Kelly Dore and Larry Ross, and to some degree county manager, Ed Ehmann, representing “staff”. Ehmann spoke in favor of the resolutions. Dore was the single affirmative voting commissioner; Ross and Rowland each recused themselves from the vote. (Read Ms. Dore’s fact twisting justification for her vote to indemnify HERE.)

Rowland then requested a $1000 reimbursement and was issued a check that was signed by Rowland and county clerk Dallas Schroeder, and approved by Kelly Dore. Strangely, Rowland and Ross wrote “recuse” when they signed the reimbursement voucher. The courts will determine the veracity of their logic. You will pay the court tab.

Where I come from, this doesn’t wash, regardless of which political leaning you claim. But, I’m not a lawyer. You and I just have to pay the county attorney’s salary of $97,000, the attorney’s fees for the citizens who bring suit against the commissioners, and now apparently, any fines or penalties levied in the pursuit of justice. Additionally, we are going to pay for outside attorney’s fees. On November 9, following a BOCC executive session, the commissioners unanimously voted to hire outside counsel from Nathan Dumm & Mayer P.C. They directed “staff”, under Ehmann, to authorize two letters of retention (Duvall Case & Brown Case) to “advise about and/or defend the litigation…”

So, county attorney Wade Gateley, and the recently hired second county attorney cannot mount a defense for the commissioners? That right there screams for the need to fire Gateley, at least.

Prior to May 2012, the county had on contract attorney services, as needed. Alex Beltz represented the county as a full time employee from May 2012-February 2014 with an annual salary of $70,000. Mr. Gateley was hired in March 2014 with an annual salary of $85,000. Gateley, unable to tend to all of his duties, hired a second attorney to primarily work issues in the Health and Human Services Department, but to also assist Gateley as required. The second attorney was hired in September, 2015 with an advertised hiring salary of $65,000.

On September 1, 2015 Gateley’s salary was raised to $97,501.56 ($8,125.13/month) when he wrote a contract approved by the commissioners that provides a six-month guaranteed salary if fired without cause. Gateley earlier authored the same golden parachute contract for Ehmann.

Evidently fearing the real potential for sanctions for misrepresenting the truth to the courts, Mr. Gateley feels the need for outside counsel for himself and the commissioners. So, they have decided that the taxpayers will foot the bill for their retention of Nathan Dumm & Mayer at a price tag of $95-$250 an hour.

Dore and Ross, almost growing a pair between them, attempted to put Gateley on paid administrative leave at today’s BOCC meeting. As Ms. Dore correctly explained, this is the appropriate protocol when attempting to fire Mr. Gateley with cause. Rowland was having none of that and rallied the troops to call for the resignations of Dore and Ross. Dore and Ross also tried to approve an engagement letter with another outside firm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schrek, to put all this litigation to rest and to prevent any additional litigation, but Rowland and his faithful few would have none of that either.

Placeholder Picture

Dore and Ross eloquently stood their ground for a while but finally backed down agreeing to remove the two items from the agenda for now, pending a future meeting with Rowland, Gateley and Ehmann. Somehow the mob had come to believe there was intent to fire Ehmann, also. Dore claimed that was not the case. While it was disappointing to see Dore and Ross back down, it was certainly understandable as they were facing a mob full of hatred and vitriol, and packing heat. At least a dozen uniformed Elbert County sheriff’s department officers and employees were among the vocal crowd.

I vote to have my taxes provide necessary services, not to educate the commissioners on the law and to have it enforced by the courts. The commissioners just don’t like these laws, believing they are unfair. And so they choose to sacrifice services to all of us to try to prove their “beliefs”. Is this their idea of service? In good faith? In the best interest of the taxpayers? If so, it is warped.

Instead of pay raises for the real workers in the county, the employees, and having government in the county operating five days a week and not just four, instead of hiring enough qualified assessors to perform legitimate property inspections and fair valuations, instead of grading and paving the deteriorating roads across the county, instead of reopening the county’s landfill/garbage transfer site, no, instead, the county’s elected officials have voted for a 30% pay increase for all elected positions. Earlier this year, the state legislature offered them the choice of 0%, 10%, 20% or 30% increases. Noting that there had been no increases for elected officials in seven years, they immediately acted like the politicians they are and claimed 30%.

The first to see these increases will be any officials elected or re-elected in the November 2016 elections. County manager Ed Ehmann, who frequently cites lack of budget as the reason the roads are in such bad shape, says that the higher property taxes assessed earlier in the year, will pay for this pay hike. Nice, eh? Perhaps the elected officials’ pay hike will be unaffordable after all this litigation is settled. But in the meantime, just eat dirt, on the roads, that is.

Property taxes….another topic for another day.

Is it any wonder the employees are fleeing? The planning department will be down to two employees by mid-December. Even though the 2016 budget was presented in near-final form to the commissioners today, county manager Ed Ehmann today said he hadn’t had time to meet yet with the director of that department!

In your spare time, if you are interested in watching your tax dollars at work, plan on attending the court hearing regarding the determination of attorney fees in the original FCPA violation case on December 11th, at 8:30 a.m. in the Courthouse at 751 Ute Avenue in Kiowa.

In Summary: The taxpayers have no reason to expect improved services from the county because all of the soon-to-be-collected increased property taxes are going to line the pockets of our elected officials and their numerous attorneys and lots of court costs.

Who says your voice doesn’t count? Silence, certainly, has consequences. Call your commissioners and voice your opinion.


Additional resources for those wondering about the applicable laws in the current lawsuits:

The Fair Campaign Practices Act: C.R.S. 1-45-117

(4) Any violation of this section shall be subject to the provisions of sections 9 (2) and 10 (1) of article XXVIII of the state constitution or any appropriate order or relief, including an order directing the person making a contribution or expenditure in violation of this section to reimburse the fund of the state or political subdivision, as applicable, from which such moneys were diverted for the amount of the contribution or expenditure, injunctive relief, or a restraining order to enjoin the continuance of the violation.

And, Article XXVIII, Section 10 of the Colorado State Constitution https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/files/amend_27.pdf
Section 10. Sanctions. (1) Any person who violates any provision of this Article relating to contribution or voluntary spending limits shall be subject to a civil penalty of at least double and up to five times the amount contributed, received, or spent in violation of the applicable provision of this Article. Candidates shall be personally liable for penalties imposed upon the candidate's committee.

Also in section 9.2 Enforcement:

If the administrative law judge determines that such violation has occurred, such decision shall include any appropriate order, sanction, or relief authorized by this Article. The decision of the administrative law judge shall be final and subject to review by the court of appeals, pursuant to section 24-4-106 (11), C.R.S., or any successor section. The secretary of state and the administrative law judge are not necessary parties to the review. The decision may be enforced by the secretary of state, or, if the secretary of state does not file an enforcement action within thirty days of the decision, in a private cause of action by the person filing the complaint. Any private action brought under this section shall be brought within one year of the date of the violation in state district court. The prevailing party in a private enforcement action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.