Open Meeting Law violation lawsuit filed against the Town of Westcliffe

 On March 6, Attorney Matt Roane, representing Jordan Hedberg (the Wet Mountain Tribune is not a party of the law­suit), filed a lawsuit against the Town of Westcliffe alleg­ing that the Board of Trustees (BOT) and Mayor violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law and by doing so, “that the Town and its board of trustees violated Hedberg’s rights under Colorado’s Open Meetings Law.”

Matt Roane is a specialist who has spent a decade taking cities, school boards, boards of county commissioners, and more to court for violations of the Colorado Open Meetings Law, also known as the Colorado Sunshine Law. He has filed over 200 such lawsuits in the State of Colorado, and his suc­cess prompted the State Legislature in 2024 to consider a bill that would have effectively prevented him from his current spe­cialty (that law was ultimately not sent to the floor for a vote).

Colorado Open Meeting Laws are strange in that they place enforcement of the law not on some police or state prosecution power but instead rely on private citizens to file lawsuits against governments. Roane has been referred to as a “private attorney general.”

Last year, the Colorado Freedom of Information Coali­tion featured Roane in a story about how he holds local gov­ernments accountable; he stated that “the General Assembly has not seen fit to create any public body with the authority to enforce the open meetings law. There are no administrative actions. There are no criminal penalties. Instead, the state thrusts enforcement of (the law) solely upon the shoulders of private citizens who are willing to engage in civil litigation.” In this case, Roane is representing Jordan Hedberg as one of those private citizens who are willing to engage in litigation to hold governments accountable.

The lawsuit stems from a special meeting that was held on December 12, 2024, to hear a presentation by the former Town Manager Caleb Patterson about the problems he had discovered about the structure of the town government. The alleged violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law took place when the board went into an executive session to talk about what the town manager had presented to the Town Attorney, Clayton Buchner. However, the result was that during the meeting, Patterson claimed that he was given an ultimatum to resign or be fired on the spot. When he asked to talk with his wife about the demands of the board, they refused, stating he had to decide during the executive session.

Executive sessions are meetings allowed by the Colorado Open Meetings Law for very specific actions by a govern­ment outside of the public view. However, over the past 50 years Colorado has elected to make policy decisions a public matter, there are strict rules for a local government to take advantage of an executive session. The executive sessions are used to get legal advice, to discuss an employee matter (the employee can elect to make the meeting public), and to formulate a negotiation strategy for things like a real estate purchase or legal action. However, in these meetings, the board is not allowed to make decisions, and the discussion must stay on the topic that was announced.

In the lawsuit filed, Hedberg alleges that there were six violations of the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

The first count is the most obvious in that the board did not vote to go into the executive session as is required by law. It takes a 2/3 vote of the board for the executive ses­sion. However, the board failed to take a vote at all. The video recording and the official and approved minutes of the meeting show that two board members made a motion to go into the executive session, but in the end, they never voted. The lawsuit states, “The Board’s violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law (COML) prevented Hedberg from knowing which members of the Board supported the proposal to con­vene an executive session and which members opposed the proposal. The Board’s violations of COML prevented Hed­berg from witnessing the Town and its Board conduct public business openly in conformity with the statute.”

The second count stems from the allegation that the board made an unlawful announcement of an executive ses­sion. While the board stated that they would be talking about the town manager’s responsibilities, they instead discussed terminating the employment of the town manager. Colorado law states that an executive session must stay on topic.

Count three alleges that the board made unlawful dis­cussion in an executive session, “The board’s discussion of all matters extending beyond the request to change the town manager’s job description exceeded the scope of the topic of discussion set forth in the Announcement.”

Count four alleges again that the board made unlawful discussion in an executive session, “The purpose of an exec­utive session authorized by C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(e) is to allow a local public body to discuss its negotiating positions and strategies outside the presence of its negotiating adver­sary. The Board’s substantial discussions in the

Executive session of any, and all, matters in the presence of the Town Manager were not matters that could be law­fully discussed in an executive session.”

Count five continues on the allegations that unlawful dis­cussions took place, “The Board’s substantial discussion in the Executive Session about whether it should change the job description of the town manager position concerned a uni­lateral decision, not a decision subject to negotiation with its employee. The Board’s substantial discussion in the Execu­tive Session about firing the Town Manager was concerned with a unilateral decision, not a decision subject to negotiation with its employee.” In short, any such discussion about firing the Town Manager needed to be done in public.

The last count alleges that unlawful actions took place in the executive session. Primarily, “The Board’s decision in the Executive Session to fire the Town Manager if the Town Manager did not resign first, constituted the adoption of a position and/or formal action.” The law states that execu­tive sessions cannot be used to come to a decision and then simply rubber-stamp the conversation that took place. The quick and unanimous vote by the board about the resigna­tion and severance package discussed in the executive ses­sion is an example of such rubber-stamping actions.

The Town of Westcliffe gets three weeks to file their answer to the lawsuit. Hedberg is asking the judge to make a ruling and declare that the board violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law and that the executive session recording be made a public record and released. Hedberg cannot be finan­cially compensated for this lawsuit other than the costs of his attorney and any court costs.

The Tribune will continue to report on this lawsuit as it progresses through the court.

– Jordan Hedberg

This editorial was originally published on March 13, 2025. To get all the local news faster, subscribe to the Wet Mountain Tribune Newspaper by clicking on this link!