On September 4, 2005, The Pueblo Chieftain published a letter from a group of seven employees of the Pueblo City-County Library District (PCCLD). The seven employees were in favor of a union representing the employees in collective bargaining with the PCCLD. The Board of Trustees of the PCCLD had earlier commissioned a survey of employees, including administrative employees, as to their feelings concerning collective bargaining. Subsequently, the Board decided not to hold an election to determine if the employees would be represented by a union.

In the Chieftain letter, the seven employees accused the PCCLD of manipulating the results of the survey. The letter was written on the employees own time and with their own resources. Yet, the Library Director and the President of the Board decided that action needed to be taken against the employees. Hence, the Library Director and the PCCLD's attorney drafted a letter to each of the employees threatening them with dismissal if they did not retract what they considered to be false statements in the Chieftain letter. Each of the employees was given the letter, and then they came to me, wondering what could be done.

As a result of rapid response from my office, none of the employees were required to retract their statements to the Chieftain. In a courageous act, the group of seven employees took on their employer with our assistance and filed a lawsuit in Pueblo District Court against the PCCLD, asserting the PCCLD and its Board had violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law. My clients accused the PCCLD Executive Director, the Board's attorney and three members of the PCCLD Board of Trustees of, first, holding a secret meeting on September 8, 2005 regarding the letter; and, second, of failing to give the public notice of that secret meeting. My clients also accused the Board of Trustees of holding an illegal executive session on September 22, 2005 regarding personnel matters concerning them without proper notice, as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML), that they would be the subject of the executive session.

We won on all three issues at the trial court level without ever having to go to trial. The PCCLD appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. On February 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision on the first issue, sending that issue back for trial on whether the September 8^th meeting was a secret or an open meeting; reversed the trial court on the second issue, finding as a matter of law in favor of the PCCLD that advanced notice of the meeting was not required, even if it was an open meeting; and affirmed the trial court on the third issue, finding that the PCCLD had held an illegal executive session regarding these seven employees on September 22, 2005. The Court of Appeals specifically held that because of the PCCLD's violation at the executive session, the "plaintiffs irretrievably lost the opportunity to have their situation discussed by the board subject to the dynamics of public observation and, possibly, public comment (either then or at a subsequent time)." We have decided to appeal the reversal of the second issue to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Regardless of the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court, my clients were brave in standing up to their employer, a governmental agency, for their rights. As the Colorado Court of Appeals once recognized, in Van Alstyne v. Housing Authority of the City of Pueblo, 985 P.2d 97 (Colo.App. 1999), ordinary citizens who take on the government for a violation of the Open Meetings Law are like "private attorneys general, who, through the exercise of their public spirit and private resources, caused a public body to comply with the Open Meetings Law."

I am proud and humbled to represent such brave citizens.

Web Resources

FindLaw
Thomson West
U.S. Courts
Westlaw
United States Chamber of Commerce
FirstGov
Library of Congress
White House
Internal Revenue Service
Yahoo!Legal Blog Directory