Yesterday in Part One, I shared a few comments from the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners’ October 10 work session, where we heard about the flip-flops controversy… with Commissioner Veronica Medina proposing that County employees should not be allowed to wear that type of footwear… and Commissioner Warren Brown arguing that attempts to control an employee’s choice of footwear is beyond the proper functions of County government.
Commissioner Ronnie Maez said he’d like County employees to present a professional appearance, and stated that he has “never seen a flip-flop that looks professional. Ever.”
Human Resources Director Mitzi Bowman said she had spoken with other elected County officials — specifically, County Clerk Kristy Archuleta and County Assessor Johanna Tully-Elliot — and was told that it might be problematic to try and enforce a flip-flops prohibition among the County’s office staff.
Apparently, some people have strong feelings about the wearing of flip-flops.
Commissioner Maez also noted that the County government includes several officials — such as the Clerk, Treasurer, Assessor, Sheriff, Coroner, and County Surveyor — who are elected independently of the Commissioners, and who, in his opinion, can set and enforce a dress code among their own staff. County Attorney Todd Weaver agreed, in general, with Commissioner Maez.
Commissioner Medina:
“This has been a good discussion… I think the minimum expectation for any business or county entity would be that employees dress appropriately for their job, and be professional. Again, we are a rural county, and we are relaxed. Which is fine. That it’s not our expectation to go to work in heels and a suit; that is definitely not the expectation.
“But I personally don’t feel that this has been a wasted conversation. And it’s definitely not just about footwear.”
I agree with Commissioner Medina. The discussion was not simply about flip-flops. It was also about freedom of choice, and appearances. And control.
I wasn’t clear, sitting in the audience and listening to this conversation, whether the flip-flops controversy had been resolved. Perhaps we will hear further discussions at a future BOCC work session.
The conversation that I’m personally preparing for, today, is scheduled to take place at the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) offices at 4pm.
Disclosure: I currently serve as a volunteer on the PAWSD Board of Directors, but this editorial series reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of any other Board members, or the PAWSD Board as a whole.
The subject at hand, for this joint meeting with the San Juan Water Conservancy District, also involves controversy, but of a slightly different order than whether employees should be allowed to wear flip-flops.
But maybe everything is relative?
Here are the key items on the joint meeting agenda, as proposed by SJWCD President Al Pfister and PAWSD District Manager Justin Ramsey:
5. Consideration of Approach to Uses of the Jointly-Owned Property
6. Consideration of Weber Request to Extend Grazing Lease
7. Consideration of Public Access to River if County Interest Remains
8. Consideration of PAWSD’s Sale of Jointly-Owned Property
The “Jointly-Owned Property” is a 660-acre ranch, formerly known as the Running Iron Ranch, and located in the Dry Gulch valley north of downtown Pagosa Springs. The property belongs to “the people” — the citizens living within certain political boundaries — but the proper use of the property, to benefit those citizens, is controversial.
One of the pleasurable aspects of writing editorials in the Daily Post — for a person like myself — is: putting my thoughts into a written form, and considering the controversy at hand from different angles. When I find myself thinking about a controversy (and I assume this is true for other people?) my thoughts can easily form a ‘tape loop’ — running over and over in the same track, without generating any new ideas or approaches to the problem… whatever problem it might be.
The essential problem that will be discussed, publicly, at 4pm today, relates to the Dry Gulch property. The control of property.
And it relates to water, and the control of water.
I’ve written often about this controversy, here in the Daily Post, because water is a human necessity, but also somewhat limited in its supply. So the control of rivers and water supplies has been very important, historically, and the temptation to engage in corrupt, anti-social, self-serving activities around water supplies, in Colorado and elsewhere, has been well documented.
It’s perhaps unfortunate that the 660-acre Dry Gulch property was jointly purchased in 2008 by two separate water districts: SJWCD — a volunteer board of nine people, each appointed by a judge — and PAWSD — a complex, multi-million-dollar organization governed by a five-person board elected by the voters.
Following the 2008 debt-financed purchase, which was carried out without voter approval, the judge-appointed SJWCD board of directors have consistently supported the idea of building a water-storage reservoir on the property.
However, SJWCD collects a fairly modest amount of property taxes — only about $90,000 a year. The cost of a reservoir has been estimated at $100 million to $350 million. So SJWCD, acting alone, could never afford to actually finance a reservoir.
In 2008, the plan was to have PAWSD customers pay for the reservoir.
But the PAWSD voters have consistently — since 2008 — been electing board members who are opposed to asking PAWSD customers pay for a reservoir — the need for which has not been clearly established.
In 2017, the SJWCD board asked the voters to increase the property tax funding for their District, to support further development of a Dry Gulch reservoir. The ballot measure was defeated by a 3-to-1 margin. (879 in favor, 2,705 opposed.) A sensible person might take that an indication that the general community, speaking during a democratic election, is not supportive of a Dry Gulch reservoir.
SJWCD has nevertheless continued to promote the idea of a reservoir in the Dry Gulch valley.
But other controversies have recently arisen around the proper use of the ranch property.
For example. Can the PAWSD Board choose to develop employee housing on the ranch property, without the approval of the SJWCD Board?
And another question. Can the PAWSD Board choose to sell the ranch property and get its customers out from under an $10 million debt obligation, without the approval of the SJWCD Board?
Who is in control, here?