It’s dangerous, even fatal, when government goes rogue whether in a democracy or autocracy. Government officials who ignore or taunt laws that constrain bad acts should be given the heave ho. We’re witnessing these egregious scenarios now at the federal and the Douglas County level. Scorn of basic rules of governance at the federal level leads to scorn at local levels.

When the president of the United States threatens to bomb Iran to the Stone Age, someone needs to step up to stop the rhetorical lunatic. The U.S. Congress with Republican majorities apparently isn’t up to the task. JD Vance, our vice president, is off to Hungary to support the great dictator, Viktor Orbán. Military officers who object to President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s seat-of-the-pants decisions are humiliated, then fired, especially if they are minorities or women. When it comes to matters of war, the courts don’t intervene to save us. Is anyone out there who can?

Fortunately, at the Colorado county level, when county commissioners knowingly and intentionally violate state statute, the courts can intervene, even if it takes time and appeals. Here’s the storyline and its implications for public policy:

In March of 2025, Douglas County commissioners took about 12 minutes to pass a resolution to take the county into an election on county home rule. The three commissioners, George Teal, Kevin Van Winkle and Abe Laydon, wanted to put county business outside the rules of state statute and regulation.

Many county residents wondered how it was possible to come to this momentous decision in 12 minutes. Three plaintiffs in a case against the commissioners, state Rep. Bob Marshall, former Commissioner Lora Thomas, and Douglas County resident Julie Gooden, concluded the commissioners held planning and decision-making meetings on this subject outside the public view. They took the commissioners and the county to court. The trial court found in favor, sort of, of the commissioners. The appeals court rejected the trial court’s fact-finding and declared the plaintiffs correct. The county commissioners flouted open meetings rules.

It’s important to understand the appeals court’s decision is significant not just to correct Douglas County commissioners’ nose-thumb at state law. It’s most critical for protecting the principle the public’s business must be conducted in public in this state.

According to the appeals court decision, the commissioners held many meetings preceding the 12-minute session. They also screwed with three executive sessions by not following procedures related to notifications and recording the discussions. The county attorney should have insisted upon proper procedures, but he failed to do so. The trial court concluded these executive sessions were not policymaking. The appeals court vigorously disagreed, stating the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.”

The plaintiff’s case breaks new ground for the implementation of open meetings statutes. Elected government officials cannot hide behind “planning sessions” as an excuse to sidestep open meetings rules when their planning involves a quorum of members. In the case of Douglas County commissioners, two members meeting together make a quorum. Though the commissioners did not come to a formal public decision on their home rule referendum in their executive sessions, they discussed and shaped their prospective options so the final vote on the referendum resolution was, in effect, a rubber stamp.

An earlier Douglas County case related to school board members conducting “serial meetings” ostensibly to avoid open meeting quorum requirements was called out by courts. This appellate court’s decision nails down that impropriety. Courts will now assess whether policy and other pertinent discussions between elected officials outside a quorum, if followed one after another in a game of telephone, will constitute “meetings” that require proper notice. The current court decision clarifies: if the sequence of meetings constitute policy discussions, then open meeting rules apply.

The plaintiffs have more tiffs with the county commissioners. The commissioners recently decided to disallow general public comment at their business meetings. As a result, if an individual has questions or comments about county business or operations not covered by an agenda item, that individual is out of luck. Commissioner Van Winkle claims these comments should be brought to open forums. Forums are not formal public meetings, so comments are not formally recorded or reported.

Plaintiffs also note commissioners have continued to play fast and loose with open meetings statute through insufficient notice of meetings, agendas and executive sessions. Consequences for breaking rules focus on procedures, not the person. Commissioners won’t be thrown into jail for violating the Open Meeting Act. Decisions of elected officials may be tossed in extreme circumstances, so officials have to redo their discussions and votes in proper public settings.

Coloradans and everyone in the nation are anxious, even frightened, over the unleashed acts of this federal administration in the Middle East. Will the president take the nation into war crimes?

In the Douglas County case, the people asserted their power over law breaking by voting down the home rule resolution by about 70% NO to 30% YES. It was a resounding defeat seconded by the appellate court.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.