Any citizen who has filed a lawsuit challenging the behavior of a local government agency — and I count myself as a member of that particular club — quickly comes to realize that holding government to the letter of the law seems far more difficult than holding an individual or small business accountable. The way the government court system has been designed — intentionally or unintentionally — generally favors government officials and their attorneys, and puts the voters and taxpayers at a disadvantage.
To hear ‘Liberty Zone’ proponent Greg Giehl tell it, the design is intentional. Nevertheless, in 2013, a group of concerned Archuleta County citizens reviewed the Colorado Constitution and related Colorado Revised Statutes and determined that The People have the right to petition initiatives onto the County ballot. When their submissions were rejected by the Board of County Commissioners, they appealed to the Sixth Judicial District for an official ruling on the matter. That 2016 lawsuit became 16CV4.
The 14 petitioners did not engage an attorney to represent them, but rather filed their request for an official ruling as pro se plaintiffs… pro se meaning, ‘for oneself.’ It would be difficult to calculate the number of volunteer hours spent by the plaintiffs — not only preparing and defending their 2016-2017 court motions but also composing and circulating the original petitions back in 2013. Several hundred volunteer hours spent, between all of them?
Ostensibly spent on behalf of The People?
In return for the two-year-long ‘Liberty Zone’ attempt to get clarification of Colorado laws, the courts ruled that the case was ‘frivolous’ and that the volunteers should pay the attorney fees requested by Archuleta County. As a result, the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners are attempting to collect $18,565.50 in legal fees, billed by former County Attorney Todd Starr for his time spent on the case. We note that Mr. Starr was one of the defendants named by the ‘Liberty Zone’ petitioners in that lawsuit, 16CV4… so it would appear that the BOCC, using taxpayer revenues, paid Mr. Starr approximately $18,565.50 to defend himself. That strikes me as unusual, but perhaps not illegal.
Several of the 14 volunteers submitted what they each considered their fair share of the $18,565.50 obligation, and received receipts for those payments. But the BOCC refunded the payments, because County Attorney Todd Weaver believed the payments were submitted improperly. We should here clarify the function of the County Attorney, because it’s complicated. The job of the Archuleta County Attorney is not, as one might be tempted to assume, to protect the people of the county in general — the way the County Sheriff, for example, is expected to protect the people of the county in general. The job of the County Attorney is to facilitate and defend the decisions made by the BOCC, and only the BOCC, and to warn the BOCC when they are about to get themselves into legal trouble. (The BOCC has the option of heeding those warnings, or not, as the spirit moves them.)
For some reason, I’m thinking back to a time, oh so many years ago, when I was involved in community theatre. One of my first roles was as ‘The Court Jester’ in a play about Queen Elizabeth I. (I’ve forgotten the title of the play.) Through that experience, I learned that the English Kings and Queens typically retained an official Court Jester for a couple of reasons. One reason, I assume, was simply to bring some humor into the court. Running a country — fighting wars, putting down peasant rebellions, spending taxes, scheduling executions — is not always a lot of fun, and Lord knows, we all need to laugh now and then, if we wish to keep our sanity. (We will set aside that question of sanity, for the moment.)
But the other important function of the Court Jester was to make fun, directly, of the King or Queen… using wit and wisdom to warn a Monarch who was on the verge of making a serious mistake… and to use humor to bring some perspective to situations that could easily get dangerously out of hand.
Thus, the Court Jester could say things in the presence of the King or Queen that no one else in the court would dare to say. (The King or Queen had the option of heeding the warnings, or not, as the spirit moved them.)
We have that same thing going on here in 21st century America, except that we’re supposedly a democracy, so our comedians appear on national television and perform for a national audience, rather than for the King or Queen directly. You might say that, if the powers of government are ultimately vested in The People, we’re the ones who need a Court Jester most of all.
And here in Colorado, political power is supposed to be vested with The People.
The Constitution of the State of Colorado forms the legal foundation for our state government; it was approved by Colorado voters on July 1, 1876 and has been amended several times since. In my opinion, one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to protect The People from governmental abuse.
From the Colorado Constitution:
Section 1. Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
And:
Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.
My digital copy of the Colorado Constitution is 1,192 pages long, and I’ve not read the entire document. But most of the rules and regulations that direct the behavior of individual citizens and governments are collected in another, even longer document: the Colorado Revised Statutes. These Statutes, in turn, must preserve the rights and protections enumerated in the Constitution, and if a conflict is found between the Constitution and a certain statute, the Constitution must prevail.
In order to challenge the actions of the BOCC — when the BOCC refused to honor the 11 ‘Liberty Zone’ initiative petitions — the group of petitioners made themselves as familiar as possible with the Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes, and with various historical court decisions.
So far, things have not worked to their advantage.
Bill Hudson began sharing his opinions in the Pagosa Daily Post in 2004 and can’t seem to break the habit. He claims that, in Pagosa Springs, opinions are like pickup trucks: everybody has one.