Photo: Archuleta County Commissioner Veronica Medina fields questions at a community meeting on August 24, at the Sisson Library.
The informational meeting at the Ruby Sisson Library on Saturday, August 24, had been advertised in the weekly Pagosa Springs SUN, and we had run an article about it a week earlier here in the Daily Post. The community would have a chance to learn about the petition currently being circulated by an organization called “Reclaim Archuleta”, proposing an election to recall Archuleta County Commissioner Veronica Medina for violating for several Colorado laws related to conflicts of interest.
The meeting would feature a presentation on Colorado laws by legal researcher Rachel Suh, who is not a licensed attorney but who has written about Colorado law here in the Daily Post. Ms. Suh had run against Veronica Medina for the District 3 County Commissioner seat in 2022. Ms. Medina ran as a Republican; Ms. Suh ran as an Independent.
The petition in question alleges that, at a June 4, 2024 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Commissioner Medina encouraged her fellow commissioners to enter into negotiations with developer Colorado Outdoors LLC and EXIT Realty broker Shelley Low, for the purchase of a property on South Pagosa Boulevard, and then cast her own vote to enter into those negotiations. By doing so, Reclaim Archuleta alleges, Commissioner Medina violated not only government ethics, but also the following Colorado laws:
CRS 31-4-404(2): (Failure to disclose her relationship with EXIT real estate broker Shelley Low, under whom she works as an agent.)
CRS 24-18-109(3)(a): (Failure to recuse, and failure to refrain from attempting to influence her fellow commissioners, during a vote when a conflict of interest exists.)
CRS 18-8-308: (Failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest to the Colorado Secretary of State.)
CRS 24-18-109(2)(b): (Forbids a local government official from performing “an official act directly and substantially affecting to its economic benefit a business or other undertaking in which he either has a substantial financial interest or is engaged as counsel, consultant, representative, or agent.”)
It’s my understanding, from the evidence presented at Saturday’s meeting, that Commissioner Medina has a contractual relationship with EXIT Realty broker Shelley Low, and therefore should have recused herself from the discussion and the vote on June 4, according to Colorado law.
Reclaim Archuleta had invited Commissioner Medina to be present at the presentation to answer questions. Commissioner Medina had, in turn, invited County Attorney Todd Weaver to attend the presentation, apparently to act as the legal authority in the room.
A fair number of Commissioner Medina’s supporters also attended the meeting. I am making the assumption, here, that Ms. Medina’s numerous supporters were Republicans, considering that the commissioner is herself an active Republican. But that’s merely an assumption.
What was not an assumption, however, is that some of Ms. Medina’s supporters show a tendency to behave in a disrespectful fashion when in attendance at a politically-charged meeting… making unsubstantiated accusations and snide comments, talking over other speakers in the room, and generally trying to shame Reclaim Archuleta for circulating their petition.
Ms. Suh is not a member of Reclaim Archuleta team, although she is helping gather signatures for the recall as a Volunteer Canvasser. Due her background in legal research, she was asked by Reclaim Archuleta to express a well-researched opinion as to whether Commissioner Medina had, in fact, violated Colorado laws.
Ms. Suh had prepared a Power Point presentation, illustrating her research into Colorado law, as it relates to real estate agents — like Commissioner Medina — who participate in official government decisions that will benefit the company which which they have a contract.
But before she began her presentation, Ms. Suh announced that Commissioner Medina had other obligations and would not be able to stay for the entire presentation, so the audience was invited to ask any questions they had of Commissioner Medina now, before they heard the presentation.
That’s when it became evident that more than half the people on the room had come, not to hear the evidence, but speak in support of Ms. Medina and to disparage the very idea of a recall election.
As the meeting unfolded, many of the questions posed to Ms. Medina were fielded, instead, by County Attorney Todd Weaver.
Mr. Weaver is himself a licensed realtor, he told us, although his license is “inactive”. He also noted that he has been practicing law for 24 years. In his opinion, because Commissioner Medina was not personally benefiting from the proposed $2.1 million property purchase brokered by the company she works for, she had no obligation to recuse on June 4. Nor did she violate the four Colorado laws named in the recall petition. In his opinion.
A few words about attorney opinions. I’ve personally sued governments here in Pagosa Springs on more than one occasion, for perceived violations of Colorado law. Through that process, I’ve learned that laws are ambiguous in certain situations, and an attorney with many years of experience who claims to “understand the law” can easily lose a court case to a younger, less experienced attorney who more intelligent and willing to work harder.
In a court case, there are always two conflicting attorney opinions — that’s the very nature of our adversarial legal system. So one of the attorneys is always “wrong”. Years of experience do not always equate to a thorough understanding of one particular law… nor do they necessarily equate to ethical behavior on the part of the attorney.
That may be the most important difference between various attorneys: their level of integrity, when serving their clients.
In a court case, only one opinion matters, and it’s not the attorneys’ opinions. It’s the judge’s opinion.
And in a recall effort, only one opinion matters: the opinion of the majority of voters.
Sadly enough, when a County official may have violated Colorado law, it’s the job of the tax-funded County Attorney defend his client (the government official) and deny that any violation took place. That’s part of his job. It’s not the County Attorney’s job to enforce the law, or even to encourage the enforcement of the law, where County officials are concerned.
It’s extremely rare for a County Attorney to challenge the actions of the commissioners paying his salary.
That job is left up to We the People.
As I said, it appeared that the majority of the people who showed up for Ms. Suh’s presentation were supporters of Commissioner Medina, and that some of them were not interested in hearing the presentation, but rather, had come to try and shame Ms. Suh for her impertinence.
We will discuss those attempts at shaming in Part Two. And then we’ll look at the evidence provided by legal researcher Rachel Suh.