Ouray County taxpayers won’t foot Commissioner Lynn Padgett’s nearly $11,000 legal bill after commissioners Jake Niece and Michelle Nauer voted against her reimbursement request on Tuesday.

Padgett and her attorney wrangled with her fellow commissioners and the county attorney for roughly 90 minutes over a host of issues — most notably whether county policies were followed after Road and Bridge Supervisor Ty Barger filed a complaint against Padgett last summer, and the merits of a third-party investigation into that complaint.

At the end of a discussion in which Nauer grew emotional at times, she and Niece insisted they could find no reason for the county to spend taxpayer funds on Padgett’s legal expenses.

Padgett and her attorney, Roger Sagal, participated in the discussion before the commissioner ultimately recused herself from the vote at the urging of County Attorney Leo Caselli.

The county paid Employers Council $14,000 to investigate the complaint, in which Barger, Padgett and several other county employees were interviewed. But the investigation report released in January reached no conclusion about Barger’s claims that Padgett harassed him and created a hostile work environment, resulting in a messy, lengthy attempt to move on from the issue.

County leaders discussed the fallout from the investigation across 10 hours of public meetings — including the adoption of a new conduct policy — stretching over six months.

Padgett engaged Sagal’s services on 19 occasions from October through February, according to a bill submitted to the county. Sagal asked the county to issue Padgett a “prompt reimbursement” of $10,980 for those services in a letter sent to Caselli and outside counsel Chris McAnany on Feb. 17. The county paid McAnany $6,700 for his services, according to a memo prepared by Caselli.

A discussion on that issue was scheduled for an executive session March 25, but county leaders instead agreed to discuss the matter in public during Tuesday’s meeting.

Caselli prepared a 10-page memo in advance of the meeting, offering the board three main options: pay the bill in full, pay a portion of it or reject the reimbursement request altogether. Caselli, who said he was remaining neutral on the issue, argued there was no legal basis for asking taxpayers to pay the bill, primarily because he said Padgett didn’t follow proper processes for retaining her own counsel on the county’s dime.

But he said the board could decide whether it was in the public interest to pay it anyway.

In a meeting on March 25, Caselli told commissioners he was going to recommend paying the bill with some reductions, “in the interest of the entire organization.”

In the memo prepared for this week’s meeting, Caselli also raised concerns that more than $1,000 of expenses on Sagal’s invoice appeared related to work for Padgett’s re-election campaign, rather than the complaint itself. Caselli referenced an invoice charge for Sagal preparing a statement to the Plaindealer and a response letter to his office that was featured in one of Padgett’s campaign advertisements.

Sagal responded he needed to be involved in Padgett’s response to the complaint once Barger made it public. Though Barger filed the complaint in August, he released it in October, just as ballots went out for the election in which Padgett was running to keep her seat.

Recusal question

At the start of the meeting, Niece asked commissioners whether any of them needed to recuse themselves for any reason, such as a direct financial interest in the decision at hand.

“That’s an interesting question,” Padgett responded. “The fees would be paid to Roger Sagal, correct?”

Caselli jumped in at that point, saying he thought it was appropriate for Sagal and Padgett to participate in the discussion, but Padgett should recuse herself from a vote on the financial matter itself, saying the invoices for reimbursement were addressed to Padgett’s personal address. He cited a portion of state law that says public officials should not take action on something they would benefit from financially.

Padgett and counsel arguments

Padgett and Sagal argued for reimbursement, saying the commissioner was entitled to legal counsel and wasn’t instructed on the proper way to retain it.

They repeatedly cited an Oct. 7 phone call between Padgett, Caselli, then-County Manager Connie Hunt and Human Resources Director Sherry Peck.

During that call, Sagal said, Padgett learned of the complaint, ongoing investigation and Barger’s release of the complaint to the Plaindeal- er, and was told that Caselli could not serve as her attorney. Padgett said Caselli advised her to retain an attorney but didn’t inform her of the proper process for doing so. Caselli disputed that, saying he told Padgett he couldn’t represent her, but that she could hire her own attorney. All agreed there’s no recording of the phone call.

Sagal argued the county didn’t follow proper processes for the complaint and investigation, leading to a prolonged conflict. He also contended it’s standard for a government to provide counsel to elected officials when complaints are filed against them.

“Indemnity is the basis,” he argued, saying Padgett had the right to a county-provided attorney, even in a situation involving a complaint from a county employee. “I think it’s customary to perform that indemnity in circumstances like this.”

Caselli said counties usually pay outside legal fees if the county’s procurement policy process and state law are followed. Padgett did not follow that process, he said. A proper process would have established guardrails for Sagal’s hourly rate and a “not-to-exceed limit” for services, likely in the ballpark of $5,000, Caselli said.

Sagal said county staff should have brought the complaint to the entire board of county commissioners in an executive session immediately after the issue arose, which would have allowed Padgett to follow the proper process.

He argued any commissioner who received the Oct. 7 call would have promptly hired a lawyer.

“I think a reasonable commissioner, upon receiving this information, based on what she had been told, believed there would be some legal jeopardy attached to this,” Sagal said.

Sagal said Caselli’s memo appeared to offer a settlement option for a smaller reimbursement. He said if the board decided to go that route, he’d only be willing to discuss specific bills in an executive session, not open to the public.

Padgett reinforced Sagal’s argument, saying she was never informed of the proper process for hiring her own counsel during the Oct. 7 phone call. She also said Caselli explicitly told her to hire her own attorney, something she also argued during the March 25 meeting.

Caselli again refuted that claim, saying he told Padgett she could hire her own legal counsel because he couldn’t represent her. He said he told her it was unlikely the county would pay for it.

“There are a lot of inaccurate things being said and accusations being made of things I did not say,” Caselli said. “This has been a consistent theme for quite some time.”

Other discussion

Unlike previous meetings, where discussion among commissioners and members of the public carried on for hours, Niece and Nauer on Tuesday swiftly rejected Padgett’s reimbursement request, saying it wasn’t in the public interest.

“I wish things didn’t transpire the way they did,” Nauer said. “Elected officials are more closely scrutinized.”

She tearfully recalled being the subject of a complaint investigation 25 years earlier when she served as the county clerk and recorder. She said she wasn’t notified of the investigation in advance or given the chance to address the outcome. Nauer said she was offered the option for legal counsel but decided against it.

“I stood a lot more to lose with the investigation that I endured,” she added, after taking a long pause.

“I didn’t ask the county to help and I did it on my own,” she said. “I held my head high and I got through it.”

Nauer asked why Padgett incurred so many legal fees. Nauer said she watched the public react to the request, which she said was largely in opposition to using taxpayer money to pay for her legal bills, and concluded: “I cannot support this request at all.”

Niece concurred with Nauer. “Commissioner Padgett is smart, and she understands the county’s policies very well,” he said.

He said he couldn’t find any public interest in awarding an exception to the county procurement policy.

He added he was uncomfortable with a finding in Caselli’s memo highlighting an invoice item that appeared related to a campaign expense, though the text was partially concealed with black ink.

“I am bothered by the attempt to conceal the reason for a charge while still demanding payment for it,” he said.

Niece also said he was concerned about following the rules in relation to Padgett’s campaign expenses, which some of Sagal’s invoice appeared to include.

“I am concerned that paying this invoice could place Ouray County in legal jeopardy for potentially violating state or federal election finance laws,” Niece said.

Barger, who commented during the discussion and said he was using his paid time off to do so, refuted an assertion made by Sagal that his complaint should have never gone public. Barger shared his grievance, which was filed in August, with the Plaindealer in October during Padgett’s campaign for re-election. He initially asked to be anonymous but the newspaper declined to move forward with the story unless he was identified as the source for his own complaint.

“My complaint was mine and I can share it with whoever I want,” Barger said.

Sagal suggested in the future, the county should make personnel complaints, even against public officials, confidential to stop allegations from being made public during the investigation process. The county cited compliance with the state’s open records laws in releasing a copy of the complaint to the public.

Written comments from the public opposing the reimbursement request were brief but overwhelmingly in opposition.

A handful of Padgett’s steadfast supporters spoke up during the meeting.

Ouray City Councilor Tamara Gulde, who said she was addressing county leaders as a resident, said she thought the county paying Padgett’s legal fees “would be a large part of healing the county.”

In her closing remarks, Padgett argued the investigation process was flawed and should have come to a conclusive finding about the complaint. She reiterated she was never properly trained on the process for retaining legal counsel through the county’s procurement policy.

Caselli argued all of the processes were comprehensive.

Niece expressed his agreement, adding: “The process did not yield the result that you desired, Commissioner Padgett.”

Sagal promptly left the room when the agenda item was scheduled for a vote. Padgett was already standing when she recused herself from voting and also left before Nauer and Niece voted to reject her request.