Archuleta County Residents,
There is an important item on Tuesday’s County Commissioner agenda that we want to bring to your attention.
Commissioner Veronica Medina is asking Archuleta County taxpayers to pay $5,872.50 in attorney fees associated with a Colorado Division of Real Estate complaint filed against her. These are personal attorney fees – please read explanation below.
The County agenda describes the complaint as relating to actions Medina took “in the course and scope of her duties as a County Commissioner.”
The woman who filed that complaint, Rachel Suh, disputes that characterization.
Rachel’s DRE complaint concerned Medina’s separately held Colorado real-estate broker license, including allegations about how Medina represented her professional licensing status. Rachel states plainly:
“This DRE complaint is specific to her actions concerning ethical misbehavior under her broker license.”
There is also a separate complaint before the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) filed in 2024, regarding Medina’s conduct as an elected official and the potential conflict surrounding the County property transaction.
The two complaints are not the same.
Rachel’s complaint dealt with Medina’s professional real-estate license. The IEC complaint concerns her actions in public office. The IEC itself is a separate state process dealing with alleged breaches of public trust. Complaint IEC 24-16 remains under investigation at this time.
That distinction matters because the question before the Commissioners Tuesday is not whether anyone agrees with either complaint.
The question is why Archuleta County taxpayers should pay $5,872.50 in attorney fees associated with the defense of a privately held professional license.
For perspective, that is money that could otherwise remain available for County priorities such as road work or other public needs. County and school funding come from separate budgets, of course, but $5,872.50 is nearly the equivalent of fifteen $400 classroom mini-grants, a useful comparison as local students and teachers return to school.
Before approving this expenditure, the public has every right to ask:
What specific conduct in the DRE complaint was part of Medina’s official duties as Commissioner?
What makes defending allegations involving her private real-estate license a County expense?
What legal authority allows County funds to be used for these attorney fees?
The Board of County Commissioners meets Tuesday, August 18 at 1:30pm at the Archuleta County Administration Offices, 398 Lewis Street. You can attend and speak during public comment if you fill out a comment request form prior to the start of the meeting. Comments are limited to three minutes. Anyone wishing to comment through Zoom must submit the County’s public-comment request form before the meeting.
You can also email the Commissioners directly or call the Commissioners’ Office at 970-264-8309 and share your concerns before Tuesday’s meeting.
Warren Brown: warren.brown@archuletacounty.gov
John Ranson: jranson@archuletacounty.gov
Veronica Medina: veronica.medina@archuletacounty.gov
If you care about how County tax dollars are spent, this is worth paying attention to.
The amount is $5,872.50. The larger question is whether expenses related to an elected official’s separately held professional license should become a taxpayer obligation.
Please read Rachel Suh’s statement (below), review the agenda item, and make your own voice heard before Tuesday. Please forward this correspondence to anyone you believe may be interested.
Sincerely,
Ashley Springer writing for Archuleta Voters for Ethical Leadership
Email from Rachel Suh
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2026
Subject: Public Statement on Medina Reimbursement
To our community and Commissioners:
I am Rachel Suh, and I am the complainant in DRE Complaint 2025-343 against Veronica Medina.
I am asking the Board to deny, or at minimum postpone, Commissioner Medina’s request that Archuleta County taxpayers pay $5,872.50 in private attorney fees associated with my complaint.
The agenda states that my complaint related to actions Commissioner Medina took “in the course and scope of her duties as a County Commissioner.”
That characterization is incomplete and, in important respects, incorrect.
My DRE complaint concerned Commissioner Medina’s obligations under her separately-held Colorado real estate broker license. In fact, my complaint expressly states:
“This DRE complaint is specific to her actions concerning ethical misbehavior under her broker license.”
Rule 6.1(C) for brokers expressly prohibits an Associate Broker from presenting or holding herself out to the public as an Independent Broker. The text of that rule contains no requirement of financial gain. The text below:
“An Employing Broker must not knowingly permit Associate Brokers to present or hold themselves out to the public as an Employing Broker or Independent Broker.”
Rule 6.1(C) regulates Medina because she is an Associate Broker, not because she is a commissioner. The complaint expressly alleged that professional-license violation.
The complaint alleged that Commissioner Medina repeatedly represented herself to members of the public as self-employed or an Independent Broker when she was licensed as an Associate Broker working under an Employing Broker.
Those representations were not duties of an Archuleta County Commissioner.
Some occurred in private conversations and online forums. One occurred at an August 24, 2024 citizen-organized public meeting concerning the effort to recall Commissioner Medina. View the meeting video here.
That was not a Board of County Commissioners meeting, and Commissioner Medina was not performing County business when discussing the status of her private real-estate license.
The reason this became relevant to County government was the alleged conflict itself.
Commissioner Medina’s Employing Broker was involved in a proposed multimillion-dollar property transaction with Archuleta County. Commissioner Medina participated in County consideration of that transaction while allegedly denying or misrepresenting the nature of her professional relationship with that broker.
That governmental conduct is separately under investigation by the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission submitted by somebody I only met after the information became public (The Streisand Effect).
Commissioner Medina’s Employing Broker was also subjected to a DRE complaint arising from this matter, and that complaint was dismissed as well. Her Employing Broker cannot present her private attorney bill to Archuleta County taxpayers. Commissioner Medina should identify what makes the defense of her privately held real-estate license a County obligation. Public office should not transform a private professional licensing expense into a public debt.
So before taxpayers are required to pay this bill, I respectfully ask the Board and County Attorney to answer a very simple question:
What specific act investigated in DRE Complaint 2025-343 was performed by Veronica Medina in the course and scope of her duties for Archuleta County?
Was Medina representing herself as an Independent Real Estate Broker while she is licensed as an Associate Broker a duty of her public office?
If not, why are taxpayers responsible for attorney fees incurred defending allegations concerning her private professional license?
And if the County’s position is that her real-estate brokerage conduct was undertaken as part of her work on this County property transaction, that raises an even more serious question concerning the conflict of interest already under investigation.
Holding public office should not, by itself, transform expenses associated with a separately held private professional license into taxpayer obligations.
I therefore ask this Board not to approve this expenditure unless and until the County publicly identifies the legal authority for the payment and the specific conduct it believes occurred within Commissioner Medina’s legitimate County duties.
Thank you,
Rachel Suh