A group of residents has filed a lawsuit in district court alleging that the Elbert County Board of Commissioners gave two senior county employees hefty employment contracts outside the public’s purview.

The legal action, filed on Thursday morning, lists the county board and commissioners Chris Richardson, Dallas Schroeder, and Grant Thayer as defendants in their official capacities. It seeks to compel each commissioner to reimburse the county treasury for any funds they voted to commit Elbert County to pay that were not previously authorized.

Elbert County commissioner and board chair Chris Richardson said the lawsuit is “premature.”

“Bringing suit seems premature, but it is their (the plaintiffs’) right as citizens to seek court action regardless of the ultimate expense to taxpayers for what is most likely a correctable procedural issue,” he said.

Richardson also noted that the county has identified a conflict of interest with its current legal representative, County Attorney Bart Greer, and is “engaging outside counsel to advise the board regarding our next steps.”

Earlier this summer, the residents retained the law firm of Zansberg Beylkin LLC, which wrote the commissioners asking officials to “formally acknowledge” the two employment contracts the county entered into with County Manager Shawn Fletcher and County Attorney Bart Greer are “legally invalid” because they were approved outside of a public meeting.

The issue stems from two “engagement of service contracts” extended to Fletcher and Greer.

Fletcher, who has been on the job for less than 18 months, saw a pay bump of $80,000 over his 2023 contract, bringing his annual salary to $220,000. Additionally, he gets a county-owned or leased vehicle, a monthly housing allowance of $1,500, and an extra two weeks (eight days) of vacation leave above his current accrual rate.

Greer, who has represented the county for close to seven years, also received an annual salary of $220,000 and the use of a county vehicle. A previous contract signed by Greer in January 2023 put his annual salary at $145,500.

”My clients wrote to the County Commissioners and urged them to ‘redo’ the process of entering into these contracts in a way that complies with the applicable laws, rather than forcing my clients to have a judge order them to do so,” said Zansberg, who also represents several media entities in metro Denver, including the Gazette family of newspapers. ”By declining that invitation, the commissioners have unfortunately subjected the county to significant financial liability.

Elbert County responded to Zansberg in a letter stating its disagreement “regarding applicable statutory interpretation.”

“The county has always worked to prioritize transparency and is determined to ensure that moving forward, the process for contracting or renewing contracts for county executive level positions is transparent in a manner that keeps the public informed, protects individual privacy, and establishes a clear and straightforward process which complies with statute and case law to accomplish this,” the county said.

Richardson has publicly defended the county’s decision, citing Colorado’s open meetings law, and insisted the statute specifically states that “day-to-day oversight of employees” is not subject to notice and that individual employee evaluations and compensation discussions are considered “day-to-day” oversight. He also cited a 2015 case against Lake County.

Several residents voiced their opposition to the the county commission’s decision at a July 17 meeting.

It would be days later when the board would publicly vote to approve those contracts, even though the county had already been paying the two officials out.

“It seems like the desire (is) that this be done, that the contracts and final compensation be approved in a formal public meeting like we’re having now, so I think that would be the right thing to do,” Richardson said at the July 24 board meeting.

The county attorney, one of the two who received the contracts in question, opined that no open meeting violation had occurred.

The plaintiffs — Jill Duvall, Jim Duvall, Christopher Hatton, Nic Meyer, and former Elbert County Commissioner Robert Rowland — believe their legal action is necessary.

“I believe (legal action) will make a difference going forward because a lot of citizens, more than usual, have been up in arms about these secretive contracts,” said Jill Duvall, the spokesperson for the five-member group. “Had these contracts not been leaked by someone who currently works for the county and was alarmed by these huge salary increases, the citizens would never have been aware of what the county commissioners did. One never knows who will be a whistleblower!”

Rowland said he wished legal action in this case would not have been necessary but added that it is long overdue.

“What will determine how much of a difference it will make will depend on our staying alert, staying involved and demanding our voice and our mandates are adhered to,” Rowland said. “That’s always the challenge. This time, I believe (this can) be a lesson in what happens when we let our elected (officials) act without our oversight.”

Duvall said the important lesson is for residents to pay closer attention to local government.

“For me personally, it’s a fascinating process to watch,” said plaintiff Christopher Hatton. “Things are bad when people on either side of the fence are forced by circumstances to come together and unite for the citizens of the county.”

Richardson confirmed the county was aware of the lawsuit but has yet to be formally served.