All three of the applicants for the vacant at-large seat on the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board — Austin Marchand, Jesse Hensle and Shane Lucero — are intimately involved in the tourism and hospitality industries, and all three expressed their hope, on August 20, to keep Pagosa’s tourism industry expanding and growing. They were seeking an endorsement from the Tourism Board, but the final appointment would be made by the Pagosa Springs Town Council and by the Board of County Commissioners, in separate actions.
As noted previously in this editorial series, the Tourism Board recommended the appointment of Shane Lucero.
I’ve had a chance to hear a number of Tourism Board interviews over the years, and I can’t recall hearing any applicant claim that we already have enough tourism, and that it’s time to diversify our economy, and stop — or at least, slow down — the gentrification of our community.
But there are definitely different perspectives out there, about how to manage the growth. Some industry professionals, like for example Mr. Hensle, argue that there will always be nay-sayers, and what we really need is a wealthier, better-behaved brand of tourist, willing and able to pay top dollar for lodging and restaurants. Mr. Hensle is not alone in encouraging that particular approach,…
But lately, the Colorado Tourism Office tells us that we need to practice a different type of “Destination Stewardship”…
… and a sizable number of local residents are disappointed in (and fearful of?) the tourism industry’s role in changing the overall character of our town.
“Destination Stewardship” was not exactly the topic of discussion at the Town Council’s Tuesday, September 3, meeting, however.
Here’s the first part of the agenda, which included the (normally perfunctory) appointment of a new Tourism Board member as recommended by the Tourism Board members. In this case, the recommended candidate was Shane Lucero.
The Town Council typically passes a “Consent Agenda” near the start of each meeting. A Consent Agenda contains business items that don’t normally require any discussion or debate, and the entire Consent Agenda can be passed with a single motion. But on September 3, Council member Gary Williams — who serves on the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board — asked to have Consent Agenda Item 2 removed from the agenda, so Mr. Lucero’s proposed appointment could be discussed and debated.
Although the Tourism Board had voted (in a secret ballot) and although Shane Lucero had received the most votes, Council member Williams was not apparently satisfied with the recommendation from the Tourism Board. Mr. Williams noted that the Town Council had received a letter from some disgruntled tourism industry leaders in October 2023, about the effectiveness of the Tourism Board. He suggested that, if the Town Council wanted to promote a variety of perspectives on the Tourism Board, hinting that the Council might want to appoint Mr. Hensle — as a representative of the disgruntled lodgers group — rather than Mr. Lucero. He thought the Council should send the question back to the Tourism Board for their consideration.
A couple of other Council members then expressed support for rejecting the recommended candidate.
Council member Leonard Martinez offered a different perspective.
“I’m absolutely opposed to this. I have four reasons, but the most important is that there is a process, and it was followed. And now we’re questioning the results of that process. What I would ask is, why don’t we take a look at the process? But it’s too late, now, to be making this change.
“And then I will give you the other reasons why we shouldn’t proceed on this suggestion. I’ve looked at the applications… and we have someone who has served [on the Tourism Board] and wants to serve. We’re having trouble filling slots on our advisory commissions and boards, because we don’t have enough interest. But in this case we did get some interest. And it’s a person who has served well, and wants to continue to serve.
“The third reason for me is very important, and has to do with the things I represent. When I speak about things, I tend to talk about culture, and the importance of it.
“What was not mentioned in the application is that [Mr. Lucero] is fifth generation, and more importantly, on his mother’s side, is the namesake: Archuleta. So the roots are deep, in that regard. We have a candidate who has access to where we came from, and who can continue to help us.
“And the fourth reason is just the dynamics, when there are changes. Even if you have the same people in positions on a board — because you have other people come on that board, the dynamics will change. And in this case, it could even be the process. I think what you’ll find is, even people who have been there for a while, their perspectives will change because the context will change.
“So I think what we have in front of us is an opportunity to make all those points, but also to support the process, today. And go back to the [Tourism Board] and hear our concerns, from a process viewpoint…
“That group has already worked through the process, and have done it the right way, and have presented a candidate.
Mr. Martinez asserted that rejecting the Tourism Board’s recommendation is “the wrong thing to do.”
As a person who has served on, and documented, various boards in Pagosa, I have to agree with Council member Martinez — that a new voice on a board or commission can change the dynamics. In fact, I believe Mr. Martinez has himself changed the dynamics of the Town Council during the two years he’s served… by way of his thoughtful arguments and suggestions.
Those changes could be seen to include, on September 3, the vote on whether to appoint Shane Lucero to the Tourism Board. Although three Council members had previously spoken in favor of rejecting Mr. Lucero’s appointment, when it came to the actual decision, a few minutes later, the Council voted unanimously to approve Mr. Lucero’s appointment.
Although I was pleased with the Council’s decision on appointing Mr. Lucero, I must point out that — if the Council is truly concerned about representation of all voices on the Tourism Board — they might consider that the Board is currently completely stacked with tourism industry representatives.
And that the overwhelming majority of the Archuleta County population has no representation at all. Zip. Zero.