At its June 4 meeting, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) ratified a separation agreement with former county manager Derek Woodman.
That agreement includes the county paying Woodman’s salary through Dec. 21, 2024 — the end of his contract with the county.
In an interview, Woodman elaborated on the circumstances surrounding his departure from the county and on patterns of behavior among the commissioners that he claims he witnessed while working there.
At a May 7 BoCC meeting, the board declined to move forward with renewing Woodman’s contract for county manager, which was covered in the May 9 issue of The SUN.
At that meeting, BoCC chair Commissioner Veronica Medina and Commissioner Ronnie Maez expressed objections to Woodman’s leadership, including a lack of communication with them and a variety of incidents that occurred during his tenure.
Those included, according to the commissioners, a Colorado Independent Ethics Commission complaint lodged against Commissioner Warren Brown and former county commissioner Alvin Schaaf for collecting money under a county policy allowing the commissioners to collect mileage driving between their homes and office, and a significant overrun of the Road and Bridge budget due to the public works director at the time making unauthorized approvals of change orders.
Brown defended Woodman’s record and accomplishments.
Maez also commented at the meeting that he expected Brown to defend Woodman since they are “really good friends.”
The separation agreement, which was ratified as part of the consent agenda at the June 4 meeting, indicates that Woodman and the county “engaged in discussions regarding his resignation from employment as the County Administrator” and that Woodman’s last day was May 8.
The agreement shows that Woodman signed it on May 15 and Medina signed it on May 23.
It states that the county will continue to pay Woodman’s salary, vehicle stipend, the county portion of his health insurance benefits and the county contribution to his retirement through the end of his contract.
According to documentation attached to the separation agreement, the total cost of these payments to the county will be $113,262.65.
The agreement also waives Woodman’s right to litigate against the county for events that occurred during his tenure.
The agreement indicates that Woodman’s employee records will state “resigned.”
However, in an interview, Woodman offered a contrasting portrait of his departure from the “mutual agreement” for him to depart that Medina described in a previous interview with The SUN.
Woodman stated that he was “escorted out.”
He explained that, following the May 7 vote to not renew his contract, he was uncertain if he would continue to work until the end of his contract and what might happen next.
However, about 15 minutes after the end of the BoCC meeting, Woodman stated, Medina and County Attorney Todd Weaver arrived in his office and presented him with a fully drafted separation agreement.
Woodman alleged that Medina indicated if he did not sign the agreement, “it will get worse.”
Woodman reported that he stated that he would need to review the agreement, adding that he had 21 days to sign it by law.
He added that he stated on May 7 that he would be in to work the next day.
He indicated he was, although he commented that he was not dressed for work.
“A little bit of kick in the teeth and, so, I wasn’t gonna work the next day, but I did have a couple things I needed to take care of,” he said. “And so, I had all the intentions in the world of maybe being there for a couple hours, if even that.”
He claimed that, while he was meeting with the county Building and Grounds Manager Daniel Matyniak to review ongoing projects, Medina entered his office and said, “What are you doing?”
“I said, ‘Well, I’m talking to Daniel, going over a couple things and then I was going to start packing up a few of my items and then leave.”
He continued, “She says, ‘Well, clearly you’re not dressed for work today. Just pack your office and leave now.’
“I said, ‘OK.’ So she sat there the entire time that I packed my office and I left at about 3 o’clock. She did tell Daniel to leave my office, that I couldn’t talk to any of the department heads, and so he did. Another employee stopped by to talk to me briefly and that employee was told to leave my office as well.”
Woodman added that “at no time” was it his intention not to return to work and commented that Medina’s statement that he “left” was “inaccurate.”
He stated that, while he was at the office, he also spoke with Medina and Weaver about the terms of his separation agreement and items that his contract stated he would receive upon departing the county, including the county portions of his retirement and health insurance benefits and his vehicle stipend.
Woodman stated that he asked for these items to be included in the separation agreement, which Weaver agreed to.
Medina declined to comment on the circumstances surrounding Woodman’s departure except to state in a communication, “BoCC has fulfilled the terms of his contract. Mr. Woodman was made whole for the duration of his contract.”
In his interview, Woodman also commented on patterns of behavior among the commissioners during his tenure, including some potentially connected to his departure.
He alleged that, over his tenure as county manager, he observed a pattern of private meetings between Medina and Maez where county business, including items up for decision by the BoCC, appeared to be discussed.
Colorado Open Meetings Law (COML) forbids discussions of county business outside of items involved in day-to-day operations between a quorum of a board, which in this case would constitute two commissioners.
Woodman alleged that coordination on matters of county business occurred “every single day” and that events would occur that Brown suggested was not aware of but that both Medina and Maez were informed about.
He pointed to the decision to ratify the separation agreement as an example, relaying that Brown stated he believed that the board would vote on the agreement, but that Medina had already signed it and the board ratified it instead.
He added that Brown reported to him that he had not seen the agreement prior to it appearing on the agenda, a break from the previous county practice that items that would be ratified would be circulated to and reviewed by each commissioner prior to being signed off on.
Woodman added that he assumed, but did not know, that Maez was aware of the contents of the agreement.
He alleged that decisions on many topics appeared to be preplanned, with commissioners shifting their positions on issues without significant additional public discussion taking place or new information being presented.
“The communication is supposed to be through a third party, through the manager, through the attorney, whatever the case may be,” Woodman said. “But, when they have conversations every day, in the hall, in their offices, when it’s just the two of them — and you can hear clearly in that building what the conversations are all about — and this is an everyday occurrence about things that are upcoming on the agenda.”
He alleged that decisions about issues such as land use code revisions or short-term rental regulations appeared to be being made “in the hallway between two individuals.”
He commented that staff would not “say anything” on these issues, adding, “They’re elected officials and the mere fact that staff does not work for a commissioner does not mean that a commissioner cannot influence the status of that person.”
However, Woodman added that, although commissioners would “provide their opinion about a staff position,” no staff were removed from county employment due to objections from the commissioners during his tenure.
He stated that he focused on whether staff were performing their job correctly or not, adding, “That can put a lot of heat on the manager. … Did I take heat on it? Well, yeah. But I attempted to continue to do the right thing.”
He indicated that similar discussions of county business that would potentially violate COML did not, to his knowledge, occur between Brown and Schaaf, which he partially attributed to their “integrity” and background in law enforcement.
Woodman, Brown and Schaaf all previously worked for the Archuleta County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO).
“I think that they … had their ethical standards, knew what the law states, and they adhered to that,” Woodman said.
Medina stated in an interview that discussions between the commissioners on decisions items only occur at open meetings, although she noted that discussions on day-to-day business between commissioners occur and that the commissioners communicate using the county manager as an intermediary.
In an interview, Maez stated that he is not aware of any discussions between commissioners on decision items of county business outside the scope of day-to-day operations.
“I think there’s some disgruntled people out there trying to stir the [expletive],” Maez added.
Brown indicates in a communication that he suspects that direct conversations on county business have occurred between commissioners in addition to communication through the county manager and at open meetings.
He states that he only suspects that such conversations occur because he has not been a witness to them.
Brown adds that, given his understanding of the definition of day-to-day business in the COML, “there have been times” where the conversations occurring between commissioners appeared to concern subjects outside the bounds of day-to-day business, which would require an open meeting under COML.
Woodman indicated that the discussions and coordination between Medina and Maez appeared to cover the matter of not renewing his contract, adding that both “100 percent knew what was going to take place.”
He explained that, until about a week before the May 7 BoCC meeting, he would speak to Maez daily.
However, he suggested that, about a week before the meeting, “Ronnie quit talking to me” and refused to acknowledge Woodman besides responding when Woodman presented him with specific information or asked him a specific question.
He added that Medina displayed a similar, albeit less drastic, change in behavior.
Prior to not renewing his contract, Woodman claimed that Medina had made “numerous” comments that she was pleased with Woodman’s performance and felt that it was better than she expected prior to being elected.
“Unless she’s pretty adept at lying to other people, straight [to] their face, take it for what it’s worth,” Woodman said. “Without question, other staff were completely blown away by this because she was telling other staff members that she was happy with my performance and happy with the way things were going.”
He stated that these comments continued until the shift in communication proceeding the board declining to renew his contract.
Woodman stated that he is unsure what triggered the shift in Medina’s views toward him.
Maez was more outspoken about his objections to Woodman, Woodman explained.
He alleged that Maez had made statements to individuals Woodman knew, including that Woodman would be fired by the end of Maez’s term and that “before he’s gone there will not be a Woodman working for the county.”
Woodman stated that the latter comment was made “more than a year ago,” prior to his wife, Tina Woodman, being fired from the county.
Derek Woodman indicated that he was not sure what Maez’s objections were to having him and Tina Woodman working for the county since he had had a positive relationship with Maez when he was working at the ACSO and felt he “did a good job” as county manager, although he noted that Maez did not support hiring him as county manager.
“There was no justification for the way that this was handled in any way, shape or form,” he said. “If you didn’t want to renew my contract, that’s one thing, then let me fulfill the contract.”
Derek Woodman also alleged a pattern of the commissioners “doing favors for their friends.”
He cited the issue of county maintenance of Old Gallegos Road in the Arboles area as an example, stating that it was not a county road and that the county had not maintained it for “over 15 years.”
“Here, Ronnie … pushes the issue because of his relationship with the Gallegos to the point where I specifically told Road and Bridge that they will go down and do maintenance on that road which also, by doing that, took on the responsibility of a bridge that’s old and failing,” he said. “And here’s this property owner where the road is literally in her front yard because of a neighbor dispute it goes that direction.
“There’s influence that, it’s not for the betterment of the constituents, it’s for the betterment of … certain individuals.”
He alleged that Maez has known the Gallegos family for a long time and “he grew up with … one of the sons.”
In an interview, Maez explained that Old Gallegos Road became a county road “years ago” and that maintenance had not increased on the road recently.
He added that maintenance has been minimal over time since the road has not required it.
josh@pagosasun.com
