La Plata County staff have logged more than 200 hours responding to records requests from the citizen-led Code Rights Project, which has spent eight months and about $8,000 investigating what it describes as inefficiencies in the county’s planning and building department.
The group describes itself as a watchdog focused on local government processes and regulatory systems.
Last week, Code Rights released “Speaking Truth to Power,” a 10-page report alleging that the root of perceived problems in the department stem from extensive involvement by the county attorney’s office.
“The root of the problem is not actually planning and building or even the code. It’s over-involvement by the legal empire,” said Jack Turner, director of the Code Rights group, hired by anonymous residents backing the project.
The report cites public records requests, interviews and county documents, though many of its conclusions rely on interpretation rather than independently verified findings.
The group argues the system has stifled business and restricted economic development in the region, pointing to what it describes as a planning and permitting process that is overly complex and time-consuming – driving up costs.
The report focuses heavily on County Attorney Sheryl Rogers, criticizing her as having accumulated broad institutional power and acting as a “de facto policymaker.”
Matt Salka and other La Plata County commissioners rejected that premise and defended both Rogers and county staff, saying attorneys serve in an advisory, not decision-making role.
“I have not once ever in my six years as a county commissioner been told this is how you need to vote,” Salka said. “She gives us all sides of the issue to let us make the best decision possible.”
Salka said criticism directed at staff is misplaced and emphasized that commissioners, not attorneys, make final decisions.
“Our staff is off limits,” he said. “The county commissioners are the boss – and the people of La Plata County are the boss of us.”
He said legal advisers are essential because county decisions can expose taxpayers to lawsuits or liability and described Rogers’ approach as cautious but appropriate.
“If you have an attorney, you best have an attorney that takes a conservative approach,” he said.
Salka added that critics may underestimate the complexity of land-use regulation and legal requirements.
“I think what they’re not understanding is what we legally have to do,” he said.
County officials say they are open to criticism and suggestions related to the land-use code, which they acknowledge can be complex and sometimes create hurdles for property owners.
Salka said commissioners could revisit how much the legal department is involved in planning processes, describing that as a policy question rather than a legal requirement.
“How much involvement do we want to have our county attorneys during the planning process – that is a discussion,” he said.
The Code Rights Project also raised concerns about the marriage of Rogers to the county finance director, Adam Rogers, saying it creates an “accumulation of undue influence.”
Turner said all important decisions made by the county require input from the attorney and the finance director. They represent two power centers, and their marriage raises concerns about a conflict of interest.
Code Rights filed a Colorado Open Records Act request seeking any “internal complaints, concerns, or reports submitted by La Plata County staff or elected officials regarding potential conflicts of interest involving the County Attorney and the Director of Finance,” but no such complaints surfaced, Turner said.
Still, that doesn’t mean much, he said.
He said that it would be unreasonable for staff to issue a complaint like that out of fear of repercussion.
Salka said the marriage of the attorney and the finance director was not a real problem and is permitted under state law.
The county attorney’s boss is the Board of County Commissioners, while the finance director reports to a different chain of command. That separation of reporting lines acts as a safeguard from any impropriety, Salka said.
“I see no issues or wrongdoing at all, and it’s completely legal,” he said. “And they’re two very highly competent people. They’ve been doing a lot of great work for La Plata County.”
Turner also renewed criticism of the county’s ex parte communications policy for planning applications, arguing the restrictions assume applicants may seek improper influence and can limit information-sharing and create a climate of mistrust.
County officials have repeatedly defended the policy. Salka said the county takes what he described as a conservative approach, based on guidance from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, which says commissioners should avoid discussing projects already in the formal review pipeline so they do not appear to promise outcomes or taint future decisions.
Colorado law does not require local governments to adopt ex parte communication restrictions for land-use decisions. Instead, counties set their own procedures for quasi-judicial hearings through local codes and policies.
Guidance from DOLA recommends limiting private communications about pending applications because undisclosed contact can raise due-process concerns and increase the risk of legal challenges. As a result, many jurisdictions adopt such rules voluntarily as safeguards, though their scope and strictness vary widely.
The county has maintained that such policies are standard protections intended to ensure fairness, prevent bias and help decisions withstand legal scrutiny.
Turner finds the argument unconvincing. “It is a way to keep them from finding out what’s going on,” he said.
jbowman@durangoherald.com
