Will s/he be the best qualified or most in tune with MAGA ideology?
The initial Park County search for a new county manager was not in conformance with applicable statute requirements. Specifically, Title 24 of CRS, section 24-6-402, which reads in part:
(3.5) A search committee of a state public body or local public body shall establish job search goals, including the writing of the job description, deadlines for applications, requirements for applicants, selection procedures, and the time frame for appointing or employing a chief executive officer of an agency, authority, institution, or other entity at an open meeting. The state or local public body shall name one or more candidates as finalists for the position of chief executive officer. The state or local public body shall make public the finalist or finalists under consideration for the position of chief executive officer no later than fourteen days prior to appointing or employing a finalist to fill the position. No offer of appointment or employment shall be made prior to this public notice. Records submitted by or on behalf of a finalist for such position shall be subject to section 24-72-204 (3)(a)(XI). Nothing in this subsection (3.5) shall be construed to prohibit a search committee from holding an executive session to consider appointment or employment matters not described in this subsection (3.5) and otherwise authorized by this section.
In 2021, Clear Creek County was scrutinized for not following the requirements of CRS 24-6-402 when hiring a new county manager. Interestingly, a piece in the Clear Creek Courant revealed,
Last fall, when the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District was hiring a new general manager, it announced its five finalists in a press release shared on social media.
While not required in the Colorado open meetings law, the community was invited to watch and listen to the finalists’ interviews on Zoom. Search committee members later described how an overwhelming amount of community support for the now-general manager solidified CCMRD’s decision to hire her.
Although not required by law, Idaho Springs followed the same process earlier this year and publicly announced three finalists for police chief. The city had short biographies of each candidate available on the city website and social media. It also hosted a virtual public forum so the community could ask the finalists questions before City Council hired a chief.
While MAGA Commissioners Dave Wissel and Amy Mitchell preach from their bully pulpit that transparency in county government is their aim and their sacred duty to the citizens of Park County, would it be out of the question for them to prove that by emulating what occurred with the Clear Creek Metropolitan Recreation District and Idaho Springs?
Just imagine when the candidates for the position of Park County Manager are whittled down to the finalists, each candidate’s bio and curriculum vitae are made public. Then, via a Zoom meeting open to all citizens of Park County, each candidate would conduct a presentation and answer the final interview questions posed by the search committee and commissioners. Then, the public would be allowed to ask questions of the candidates.
Now, that’s transparency. Right?
If you were like me, I had to discover for myself the qualifications of the two “final” candidates in the initial search for a county manager. I additionally searched for the qualifications of the interim county manager, Mike Smith. As I researched, the question kept popping up: Why haven’t the curriculum vitae of the finalists been made public? And if they were, where were they hidden?
My research revealed stark differences in the qualifications of Lucas Meyer and David Paul, the two “finalists.” I also found Mike Smith’s qualifications, which provided another stark difference between him and the “finalists.”
My research and memory also revealed what I found to be a curious connection one of the candidates had and probably continues to have with MAGA elements of the county who support Tactical Civics with impunity and participated in an “investigation” of county budgets in 2022. The so-called “investigation” alleged significant criminal behavior by county officials, which, to date, two years after the fact, remain unfounded, unindicted, and defamatory.
Also, in my research, I found a video showing how Doña Ana County (Las Cruces), New Mexico, handled its final interview of candidates for county manager. Granted, Doña Ana County has about 220,000 residents. But the point, of course, is the professionalism of the process.
Should the citizens of Park County expect something less than this? Or even a modified presentation that is not as elaborate but no less public? The only thing missing from the Doña Ana presentations was the opportunity for the public to participate with questions.
At some point during the fourteen days, the finalist names are required to be published, and before the decision is made, why couldn’t we have complete transparency from county commissioners with a public meeting such as Doña Ana County conducted? Why couldn’t all citizens of Park County see what over $100,000 of their tax money will be paying for?
I can’t think of a good reason not to do so—unless, yes, ideology will trump qualifications for the commissioners who will make the ultimate decision.
