Greg Giehl and I shared pizza and draft beer at Rosie’s yesterday, to discuss the $18,565.50 in attorney’s fees that District Court Judge Jeffrey Wilson ordered to be paid to Archuleta County by the ‘Liberty Zone’ petitioners. We had witnessed some complications with that order, because the judge had determined that the 14 plaintiffs in the 16CV4 lawsuit were “jointly and severally” liable for that amount.
As I understand the term “jointly and severally” it indicates that each plaintiff is responsible for the entire amount, if for some reason the other 13 don’t share in making the payment.
Several of the 14 ‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiffs have in fact submitted checks to the Archuleta County Treasurer, to cover their individual portions of the $18,565.50 liability… an amount that comes to $1,326.11. The Treasurer accepted those payments and deposited the checks (I understand) but was then told to refund the checks by sending out Archuleta County refund checks to the plaintiffs who made the payments.
Former County Attorney Todd Starr was a defendant in the 16CV4 lawsuit, but also served as the defense attorney in that same suit, and was the person who submitted $18,565.50 in attorney billings as evidence in the lawsuit. Mr. Starr has since resigned as the County Attorney, so the current County Attorney — Todd Weaver — has been charged with fixing the mess.
We won’t get into the fact that the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners control the spending at the County, and that they are funded by the taxpayers to the tune of about $30 million a year, and so have (practically speaking) almost unlimited funding for defending themselves in court when they are accused of illegal behavior by those same taxpayers.
The ‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiffs, meanwhile, had to pay their own costs out of their own pockets, and with an expenditure of their own time, to challenge the actions of the BOCC which they believed to be illegal.
When the government courts then appear to be punishing the activist taxpayers with thousands of dollars in fees, it probably has a chilling effect on the willingness of the taxpayers to challenge their own government leaders. But we won’t get into that right now…
Local activist and former County Commissioner candidate Dennis Spencer was the person who originated the idea for the ‘Liberty Zone’ petitions.
Mr. Giehl explained:
“Dennis contacted the research people up at the state archives, to try and get the background on CRS 30-11-103.5 which is concerned with county petitions. Cost him $500. Anyway, they sent us their research. We have the digital version of the discussion, the last time 30-11-103.5 came up [at the General Assembly]. We actually got the mark-up sheets, where the legislature worked on changing the wording.
“And it confirmed that in 1996, the last time the legislature worked on it, it confirmed how county [initiative] petitions are supposed to be handled.”
The defense presented to Judge Wilson, by attorney Todd Starr in the 16CV4 case, was based largely upon the 2000 appellate court decision in Daniel Dellinger v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Teller.
Mr. Giehl: “Dellinger was a usurpation of the General Assembly’s authority. There are no statutes that back up Dellinger. We submitted at least a half dozen Supreme Court cases that confirm, yes, we have the authority to do what we are doing.”
Which is, to circulate and submit citizen initiative petitions and place measures on the County ballot.
“This is the Bar Association taking control of everything. The Bar Association now runs the government. They write the laws and make everything favorable to the attorneys. This is what we have discovered in our research since this case began…
“Initially, in the original 1876 Colorado Constitution, the initiative process is not there… but in 1908, Oregon put the initiative process into their constitution, and Colorado did it in 1910, verbatim.”
For the next 70 years, numerous court cases addressed the ability of the citizens to petition measures onto the ballot.
“And in 1980, the General Assembly put an end to the [disputes] by creating CRS 30-11-103.5.”
I shared that statute yesterday in Part Three, but here it is again:
CRS 30-11-103.5 : County petitions and referred measures
The procedures for placing an issue or question on the ballot by a petition of the electors of a county that is pursuant to statute or the state constitution or that a board of county commissioners may refer to a vote of the electors pursuant to statute or the state constitution shall, to the extent no such procedures are prescribed by statute, charter, or the state constitution, follow as nearly as practicable the procedures for municipal initiatives and referred measures under part 1 of article 11 of title 31, C.R.S. The county clerk and recorder shall resolve any questions about the applicability of the procedures in part 1 of article 11 of title 31, C.R.S.
(My emphasis added.)
We might note here the authority given to the County Clerk and Recorder, to resolve “any questions about the applicability of the procedures.”
In the case of the ‘Liberty Zone’ petitions in 2013, the process was approved by County Clerk and Recorder June Madrid, and the signed petitions were accepted by Ms. Madrid. But somehow, the Board of County Commissioners and their attorney, Todd Starr, were able to prevent Ms. Madrid from placing the initiatives on the 2014 ballot. (I’m not clear how that happened.)
“It’s the People. The People have the authority. So in 1980, the General Assembly created 30-11-103.5 and we got, from the archives, that in 1996 — 16 years later — the General Assembly reaffirmed that, yes, county residents can do initiative petitions.”
From what I can tell, at this preliminary point in my research, Judge Wilson did not allow the ‘Liberty Zone’ plaintiffs to fully present their legal research in his courtroom.
But I have more to learn about that.