Durango city councilors quietly met with La Plata County commissioners for a “meet-and-greet” – with no staff present – at the DoubleTree Hotel earlier this month, against the advisement of city staff.
Durango Mayor Gilda Yazzie and councilors Dave Woodruff and Kip Koso attended the May 7 meeting, against the guidance from City Manager José Madrigal and City Attorney Mark Morgan, who warned such a meeting could veer into public business and draw scrutiny.
La Plata County issued a public notice for the meeting, but the city did not provide public notice. By contrast, the city issued a public notice in February for an informal meeting between councilors and the Southern Ute Tribal Council.
A records request by The Durango Herald revealed that La Plata County Commissioner Marsha Porter-Norton extended the invitation to city councilors, specifying that no staff members should attend.
Porter-Norton told the Herald the meeting was meant to build relationships, and it had nothing to do with public business. The discussion hit on news of the day and legislative matters, including differences inhow commissioners and the city work with lobbyists.
She said elected officials have the discretion to include or exclude staff members from meetings.
“Citizens that were commenting and feeling disappointed in the city-county relationship should be thrilled that we really have a commitment to get to know one another and build relationships, because it is out of relationships that trust comes and collaboration comes and better communication comes,” she said.
She added that city and county elected officials used to meet regularly, with proper notice as necessary. The meeting earlier this month – with more meetings on the way – aims to restore intergovernmental ties so that when pressing issues arise, elected officials are familiar with each other.
Madrigal emailed councilors after learning of Porter-Norton’s request, noting that a quorum (three of five councilors) triggers public notice requirements under Colorado’s open meetings law. He also cited a number of “complex negotiations” pending between the city and the county.
In emails, Madrigal acknowledged the benefits of “breaking of bread” with county commissioners but reiterated concerns about holding a meeting with a quorum of councilors and no staff present.
He told the Herald his concern was about how easily conversation could inadvertently drift into public business.
“Even after that email (to councilors), there were councilors that attended, and I don’t know what was in that meeting,” Madrigal said. “I wasn’t invited, so I don’t know exactly what was discussed.”
The city and the county have been at odds over a number of issues in recent months, all of which can be considered “public business.” Those disagreements include whether the county jail is obligated to house municipal offenders and a county contract for 911 emergency services, which are operated by the city.
“With the number of significant and pending items currently between the City and County, including topics that involve complex negotiations, there is a heightened risk that casual conversation could unintentionally stray into discussions subject to open meeting regulations,” Madrigal said in his email to councilors.
Madrigal added he and the city attorney support relationship-building, or “breaking of bread,” with commissioners but were obligated to advise councilors of the risks in meeting with no staff members present and in a quorum.
Mayor Yazzie said no public business was discussed at the meeting. Elected officials talked about their hobbies, what they do on their downtime and their views about how national politics will play out in the coming years.
Yazzie said she left a $20 tip and councilors offered to pay their own tabs, but Porter-Norton offered to cover the bill, which totaled about $100.
Porter-Norton said she paid the tab out of her own pocket.
Jeffrey Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said the city of Durango did not violate Colorado’s open meetings law by not providing public notice. But he said some public bodies issue notice of “meet-and-greet” gatherings when it is not statutorily required, in the “spirit” of transparency.
He said the public meetings law applies to meetings in which “policymaking responsibilities” are discussed or are demonstrably linked.
“Generally, a ‘meet and greet’ like they’ve described isn’t subject to the open meetings law so long as the council members and the commissioners do not discuss city or county business,” he said. ”Of course, when there is no one else in attendance it’s up to them to make sure their conversations do not touch on public business.”
The Colorado Department of Local Affairs does not make that distinction. According to DOLA, government bodies must provide public notice for meetings where policy is discussed or formal action occurs, “or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance.”
Roberts said a public notice issued by one public body does not suffice for another’s in the case of joint meetings. In other words, the county’s announcement does not excuse the city from failing to announce a joint meeting.
“But again, the meeting must relate to those bodies’ policymaking responsibilities to be subject to the open meetings law,” he said.
cburney@durangoherald.com
