How low can we go? No, we’re not talking about limbo, rather the ongoing feud between the city of Durango and La Plata County over the city’s use of the county jail for municipal offenders, and the need for a formal Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the county to pay for dispatch services.
The Herald’s editorial board sat down with representatives from the city and county this week to learn about the ongoing conflict and see if there was anything we might be able to contribute.
One thing that was clear before these meetings, from reviewing the newsroom’s coverage of the issue since the city decided to sue the county (Herald, Jan. 17, Feb. 6, Feb. 6, Feb. 13), is that our community deserves better.
This is not the Durango way.
At a time when the workings of the federal government are under attack, we share in the public’s dismay at the state of relations between our two local governments.
It should never have gotten this far. Were the lawsuits necessary? We think not. There was no need to use the legal system to bring the jail issue into sharp focus.
Especially as the city lost both lawsuits. How much staff time could have been put to better uses?
Have coffee.
We all know how satisfying it can feel to one’s ego to prove a point and to be right, but at what cost? Important relationships that can be difficult and sometimes impossible to mend, yes.
Parties returning to their corners, such that the city is now doing to consider its options to operate its own holding cells for municipal offenders, and the county is doing as well, having inquired about the cost of working with another dispatch center, do not likely serve the public interest. Not fully visible is the desire of both parties to identify a way forward, together.
The county is seeking an updated IGA for the jail that includes additional language including a commitment to cover liability the county could encounter by housing municipal offenders – to cover both potential lawsuits and physical property damage. The city is concerned about the increased financial costs of operating the 911 center, with the issues linked for the first time in November.
Watch the end of the Feb. 4 city council meeting (viewable at https://bit.ly/41p4179), and see what you think about the sharp words and mudslinging. No members of the public were in the room, only two senior department heads. Accusations of lying (more than once), one councilor accusing another of “sliming” the others, “these people” and allegations thrown at the county’s leadership.
Were there adults in the room? Nope. Indications of professionalism? Nope. Did our councilors and staff members forget that the world is watching? We deserve better. Not only in what they say to one another, but in what they say to and about the county.
We hold elected officials to a reasonable standard of decorum, even during the stress and strain of the job that is diverse and complex, and sometimes filled with uncertain grays.
We imagine the county can do better, too, in how it approaches the city. Both do have different leadership structures, but issues can be resolved. Other shared initiatives – the airport, the library – work smoothly.
Accuracy is part and parcel of collaborative future undertakings. The County Road 250/251 Improvement Project being one. with each party contributing $4.4 million of the joint city/county sales tax. Yes, the county funded its share; a councilor got that wrong.
Did the county “pull out” of the planning for Durango Mesa Park on Ewing Mesa, as the councilor claimed? That suggests a commitment was made. The county would say it was never in, that it only was participating in the earliest exploratory conversations. When estimated costs were determined, there was no need to continue.
The county is taking a break in its discussions about the jail and the dispatch center until after the city’s April 1 election. Let’s hope the city is doing the same. There is no need to dig the hole any deeper.
Coffee, anyone?
