The Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District welcomed new Title 32 counsel Dylan Woods of Coaty, Marchand and Woods, PC. He and his law firm have experience in providing operations legal advice to water and sanitation districts.
Here is their website:
https://www.cmw-evergreen.law/colorado-attorneys/
For at least the past 8 months, the recall group (Arlen, Bertolli, Bronson and Odenweller “ABBO”) have been harassing the board incessantly about how ABBO should be running the meetings and making decisions for the board.
The practices ABBO preached, supported by Counsel Timmins who was retained to handle the litigation, were simply wrong at many levels – legally as well as managerial.
That finally came to an end Tuesday night. The board majority heard from an attorney with experience in how water and sanitation districts operate and run their meetings – legal requirements and best practices.
They heard from an attorney who had no allegiances to ABBO (Rita Bertolli recruited Counsel Timmins in 2018 – 2019) and was not supporting one board member against the others (Counsel Timmins fought to advance Director Hanagan’s positions against the majority).
Here is what the Board (and ABBO) learned (contrary to ABBO’s preaching and misleading advice and direction from Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmins);
1. The Attorney for the District works at the pleasure of the board. If there is a conflict, the attorney, not the board, resigns.
2. The Attorney for the District will not spend time and the District’s money unless directed by the board to do specific work.
3. The majority of the board decides what the attorney should work on.
4. The minutes can be handled many different ways. The public plays no role in approving the minutes.
5. Public comment format is up to the board. Providing public comment at the beginning of the meeting is perfectly appropriate. The only obligation is that there be reasonable time place and manner. Public comment that disrupts a meeting, as had occurred regularly through the recall group, is a reason to terminate a meeting.
6. There is no obligation under the law to accept public comment outside of the public comment period.
7. Two board members talking about board business is not a meeting under the Open Meetings Law. They can meet two at a time and more than once.
8. If the board is working on draft documents or proposals through two board members who are working together, and the two board members want to share documents with the rest of the board, it is appropriate to do so through counsel.
Counsel can be the “hub” of those discussions with two board members at a time.
9. It is appropriate and actually recommended for board members to share with each other what their positions are on issues before a final vote is taken at a board meeting.
10. There is no legal requirement for posting a board packet before the meeting. The only requirement under the Open Meetings Law is posting where and when the meeting will take place along with an agenda of what items are known at the time the meeting is set.
11. There are only a small number of resolutions that must be posted before a vote – such as those dealing with fees and taxes. The majority of resolutions do not need to be posted before a vote.
12. The only way for the board to release a privileged communication is through a vote of a majority of the board, The attorney and chairperson do not have the right to release privileged communications, a practice followed in the past by Director Hanagan and Counsel Timmins.
13. If the Attorney is not providing the reports, information and counsel requested by the board, counsel should be fired. There is no reason for the board to pay for service they are not receiving. This was a constant issue with Counsel Timmins.
14. If something comes up during a meeting and the board or counsel believe an executive session is appropriate, the board can vote to go into executive session to receive advice from counsel.
There is no requirement that the request for an executive session be posted in the agenda.
If the board anticipates a need before the agenda is published, it should be in the agenda. But if something comes up at the meeting, it is entirely appropriate to have the executive session.
Mr. Woods noted that routine executive sessions scheduled every meeting (which has not been an issue with the Board but incidentally is a significant issue with the Solterra Board) is likely a violation.
15. It is entirely appropriate not to approve line items in expense proposals – such as attorney fees – and still pass the rest of the expenditures.
This again was the subject of debate with Counsel Timmins who insisted that the board had to approve her fees and if they didn’t, they couldn’t approve the other expenditure requests for that period.
16. It is entirely appropriate for the board to limit the services an attorney will perform.
During this discussion the board directed that Counsel Timmins handle the Big Sky litigation.
Counsel Woods would handle all other matters.
The “Icenogle” litigation (malpractice suit brought against former board counsel who approved the IGA) was included with the Big Sky litigation.
Who would handle the Big Sky appeal was unresolved. Appellate work requires different experience and skill sets than trial counsel.
17. Mr. Woods will be the attorney contact for any legal issues staff has in handling the CORA requests – most of which were from the recall group. Previously the CORA requests against the board majority were openly encouraged by Director Hanagan and were routinely handled by Counsel Timmins favorably to the recall group with no input by the board majority.
18. The board also discussed the “ravine” issue with Lakewood, a master plan review, system development chargers and a capacity review.
The public comment – dominated by the recall ABBO group – was virtually non-existent at this meeting and the prior meeting when Mr. Woods’ firm was retained.
The ABBO recall group is no longer preaching their false statements about how the Open Meetings Law operates.
They owe the board majority an apology for all the abusive accusations the past 8 months and the residents an apology for wasting all the board resources during this same time.
Instead, ABBO could not resist giving presumptuous “advice” to Mr. Woods to be careful of the board’s abusing executive sessions and not paying Mr. Woods. Neither the board or Attorney Woods had any response and likely ignored the inappropriate comments.
And, not to let another meeting pass without further threats and harassment of the board, Rita Bertolli warned and threatened yet another lawsuit would be filed – this time ABBO “would be represented by an attorney”, she declared. They dismissed the first lawsuit a week ago. We all wait with bated breath for the next edition.
ABBO still thinks they are running the board through Counsel Timmins and Director Hanagan.
Finally, Ms. Bertolli again repeated the false statement that the board, particularly Director Morgan, had “silenced” public comment on all issues.
No member of the public has ever been silenced.
Every member of the public has had unlimited access to share whatever they had to say during the many public comment periods.
Yet another of many false allegations with absolutely no evidentiary support.
None. ABBO has the burden of proving their false allegations. We all are still waiting for any evidence of this and many many other abusive allegations.
Anyone listening to the meetings will quickly hear that the only “silencing” that has occurred was when Director Hanagan, Counsel Timmins and Ms. Odenweller silenced director Morgan by speaking over director Morgan and censoring her during the meetings.
Here are a couple of examples:
from 2:03:10 to 2:08:52:
from 1:19:41 to 1:22:08:
The recall group has had as much public comment as they wanted for several months until the abuse was literally obstructing the board from getting any business accomplished.
The board then limited comment to the beginning of the meeting. Which again, is standard practice and in perfect compliance with the Open Meetings Law as confirmed by Mr. Woods.
The board majority has weathered 8 long months of attacks by the recall group and Counsel Timmins. Now they are getting back to the business of the District.
The complaints made by the recall group as the basis of the recall have now been exposed as factually false and without legal support.
But ABBO still plans to file a new lawsuit and to pursue the recall.
And, Rita Bertolli is the campaign chairperson for Christopher Arlen’s campaign for Lakewood City Council. Both of whom are leaders of the recall. (Arlen, Bertolli, Bronson and Odenweller – ABBO).
I’m sure that
1.) the constant preaching by Arlen about “how he knows better than the Board” about how to do their business,
2.) the recall, and
3.) the lawsuit
all in Arlen’s name – have absolutely nothing with trying to get him elected to Lakewood City Council in Ward 4.
I am sure the two have nothing to do with each other.
I am sure that Mr. Arlen and Ms. Bertolli haven’t been using this entire charade as a way to try to make him “look good” for the City Council election in November.
Happy to give Mr. Arlen some more exposure. Here he is again, taunting the board and telling them how awful they are and how great he is:
In probably August the Green Mountain District will vote on whether or not to provide Green Mountain’s sewer service to Big Sky.
Big Sky, who is in another district (Mt. Carbon) and who has no legal claim to the service from the Green Mountain District.
Sewer service from Green Mountain which may compromise Green Mountain’s capacity to provide sewer service to its own district in the future.
The recall election was initiated by ABBO plus the group of paid signature collectors who collected 75% of the signatures.
Even though ABBO initiated the recall, you, the taxpayer and customer of Green Mountain will pay for the recall election.
The cost, according to the DEO, Sue Blair, stated in the scope of work attached to her contract, will be at least $80,000 plus legal fees.
At the election, you all will get to vote on whether to keep the directors who stopped the Big Sky IGA or vote for new directors who will give Big Sky a new IGA.
That is the ultimate issue – do you want to provide Green Mountain’s sewer service outside the district to promote development in Rooney Valley.
Big Sky is not entitled to service from Green Mountain under the regulations, service plan, Title 32 and the Colorado and United States Constitutions. Big Sky was entitled to service from Mt. Carbon, but never Green Mountain.
The question is whether or not the residents of Green Mountain give their special permission to the board to take capacity away from Green Mountain and give it to the Rooney Valley developers.
We all look forward to what ABBO does next to try to disrupt the board.
John Henderson