On Sept. 3, the Pagosa Springs Town Council approved a resolution appointing Shane Lucero, a local business owner, to an open at-large seat on the Pagosa Springs Area Tourism Board.
But the vote of the council did not come without some discussion about possible changes to the rules of the board and some controversy stemming from the way in which the tourism board handled its own vote on selecting Lucero.
Ultimately, three candidates — Austin Marchand, Jesse Hensle and Lucero — applied for the open seat, which was previously held by Lucero, who sought another term on the board.
The recorded minutes from the Aug. 20 tourism board meeting show that the board chose Lucero using the process of a secret, paper ballot in choosing the candidate, rather than the more typical method of choosing a candidate in an open forum.
Board vice chair Dallas Weaver, who ran the Aug. 20 meeting in the absence of Tourism Director Jenny Green, explained at the council meeting that he wanted to use the paper ballot process because it is less awkward than the board voting in public on its choice for the seat.
Green added that the town attorney had been consulted about whether a secret, paper ballot would be legal for an advisory board to choose a candidate, which would ultimately be approved or disapproved by the town council and the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC).
The minutes from the Aug. 20 tourism board meeting reflect that it was determined that, according to Colorado Revised Statute 24-6-402, the law allows the board to handle the vote via a secret ballot.
The paper ballot tally showed that Lucero received four votes, Hensle received three and Marchand received one vote, according to the meeting minutes.
But town council member Gary Williams, who also serves on the tourism board, asked the council to send the matter back to the tourism board for reconsideration.
Williams suggested that he did not deny that Lucero “has done a very nice job” serving on the board in the past, but felt that a change on the board might better reflect the changing needs and nature of tourism in the community.
“We’ve got these 25 lodgers and owners of STRs [short-term rentals] in town that would like to see some change and … perhaps my colleagues would like to weigh in on whether they think we need change and if we should send this back to the board for reconsideration,” he said.
Council member Brooks Lindner expressed that he supported William’s suggestion to send it back to the tourism board for reconsideration.
“There is a risk of allowing members to continually serve on the same board,” he said, adding, “I don’t think it serves the best … interests of our goals for tourism.”
Council member Mat deGraaf chimed in, saying that the board should embrace dissent and opposing viewpoints on the tourism board.
Council member Leonard Martinez disagreed with the suggestions to send this issue back to the tourism board for reconsideration, saying, “I’m absolutely opposed to this.”
“The principal is most important, and that is that there is a process and it was followed. We’re questioning the results of that process, and what I would ask is why don’t you take a look at the process? But, it’s too late now to be making a change,” he said.
He added, “We have someone who has served and still wants to serve, and we find that a lot of our commissions and boards have trouble filling those spots.”
He also added that Lucero “is a person who has served well and wants to continue to serve.”
He cited the importance of Pagosa’s historic culture, saying that Lucero is “fifth generation and, more importantly, on his mother’s side, is the namesake, Archuleta of the county …so the roots are deep, in that regard. So, listen, we have somebody who has access to where we came from and can continue to help us today.”
He suggested the board already went through the process of choosing a candidate and “it would be the wrong thing to do” to send the issue back to them for reconsideration.
However, council member Madeline Bergon noted that it did seem “the process” in which Lucero was chosen “was a different process than what we’ve seen before.”
“There was a paper ballot, and I have not seen that process utilized previously for board recommendations, and, so, I’m just a little curious … because this was a different way of going about that election,” she said.
Green explained that Weaver was “the acting chair of that meeting” and that the paper ballot method was chosen after the last time the board chose candidates in an open process, which she described as “extremely awkward.”
She said the candidates from that previous January meeting were “friends, customers, etc. in a very small town,” making the public vote difficult.
She noted that she had met with Weaver and he asked if it was “possible to do a different kind of vote” this time around, instead of a public vote, and that she had personally contacted town attorney Bob Cole, who told her that it would be fine “as long as the results are recorded in the minutes.”
“I’m the one who brought it up … we’re a very small town and we see everyone day-to-day,” Weaver said, suggesting he anticipated a scenario where a candidate would ask, “Did you vote for me or not?” and the paper ballot was a way to avoid this “awkward” interaction.
Mayor Shari Pierce said that she understands the difficult position doing a vote in public puts the board members in, but this was part of being a public servant in the community.
“I’ve had a lot of people come to me over the years about decisions that have been made, and my response is, if you don’t like what we’re doing, maybe we should look at changing the rules,” she said.
She added that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the town, Archuleta County and the tourism board, allows for members to serve consecutive terms indefinitely.
“The tourism board did not have to take that into consideration when they were choosing a candidate … So, if this is a problem, then we should consider changing the MOU,” she said.
However, in the case of the paper ballot, she said, “I personally don’t like secret ballots,” but said that the town attorney stated it was legal, so if the council thinks this is a problem, “we have the ability” to address that “in the rules as well that they shouldn’t have secret ballots.”
She said to Weaver, “You’re right … it’s very hard, but we [the council] sat here and interviewed our town manager candidates in an open meeting and discussed and voted right in front of them, and if you’re gonna be on the board, it’s just something you’re gonna have to do.”
She continued, “So, that’s typically the way we do it,” adding that if the council wanted to address the selection process of tourism board members, it would need to change the MOU to be more specific on the matter.
“I’m willing to be in favor of what the tourism board brought before us,” she said, also noting that she would like to address what Williams brought before the council, and others voiced agreement with, about addressing the concerns of the lodgers and changing tourism dynamics.
deGraaf added, “There’s a sentiment within the community that is running counter to the direction that we are heading,” saying that he’d like to see those voices be “heard and acknowledged.”
“That group needs to feel as if they were heard,” he said.
When a motion was made to approve Lucero’s appointment to the board, the council was unanimously in favor of it.
The issue goes next in front of the BoCC.
derek@pagosasun.com
