Neighbors for Good Governance

Local voices for representative leadership in Montrose County.

Our Mission

Neighbors for Good Governance is a community group dedicated to building an informed electorate, increasing voter turnout, and supporting future leaders in Montrose County.

Calm & Steady — We engage in measured, respectful dialogue, even on difficult topics. Our goal is to lower the temperature and raise the quality of civic conversation.

Fact-Based — We rely on verified information, local data, and transparent sourcing. When we don't know something, we say so — and we find out.

Collaborative — We work with neighbors, local organizations, and community leaders across the political spectrum to find common ground and practical solutions.

Our work is non-partisan. We do not endorse political parties or ideological platforms — only the values of transparency, accountability, and community.

Supporting Future Leaders

We believe strong local government begins with people who are willing to serve their community. We work to identify and encourage potential candidates who reflect the values of Montrose County—people motivated by service, people who are trusted, fair, transparent, and deeply committed to our community. We look for leaders who will listen, make thoughtful decisions, and remain accountable to their neighbors rather than to outside interests or party platforms.

As part of that commitment, we reach out to all candidates running for each office and invite them to share their perspectives directly with the community. Below are the responses we received.

Open Seat: Montrose County School District Board of Education, Director District B — Applications Due October 30, 2026

The Montrose County School District (MCSD) Board of Education is accepting applications from community members interested in filling the Director District B seat, following the resignation of board member Ted Valerio, effective October 13, 2026.

Application deadline: Friday, October 30, 2026, by 3:00 p.m.

Who is eligible

  • Registered elector of the school district for at least 12 consecutive months before the date of appointment
  • Resides within the boundaries of Director District B
  • Has not been convicted of a sexual offense against a child (C.R.S. 22-31-107(1), (5))

How to apply

  1. Complete and sign the Affidavit of Application
  1. Write a letter of interest explaining why you would like to serve
  1. Email both documents to laurie.laird@mcsd.org or deliver them to the MCSD District Office, 930 W. Colorado Avenue, Montrose, by October 30 at 3 p.m.

The appointed member will serve the remainder of the current District B term. The seat will be up for election in November 2027 as part of the regularly scheduled school board election.

Questions? Contact Laurie Laird, Secretary to the Board of Education, at laurie.laird@mcsd.org or 970-252-7902.

Neighbors for Good Governance Supports Caryn Gibson for Montrose County Commissioner, District 2 — September 23, 2026

Neighbors for Good Governance recently met with Caryn Gibson, candidate for Montrose County Commissioner, District 2. Although Gibson is on the November ballot, she has begun serving as commissioner after being appointed to fill the vacancy in District 2.

Neighbors for Good Governance believe that strong local government begins with capable leaders who listen to residents, approach decisions thoughtfully, and are willing to work with people who hold different points of view. As part of our effort to identify and support such leaders, we wanted to sit down with Gibson and learn more about why she is seeking the office and how she intends to serve Montrose County.

When we asked Gibson why she wanted to be a county commissioner, her answer centered on giving people a voice.

She believes residents should know that their voices matter, and she described her guiding principle, "Together We Can."

Gibson brings more than 40 years of experience in public education to the position, including 15 years as superintendent of the Delta County School District. During our conversation, she spoke about lessons from that career that she believes will carry over into county government: everyone matters, listening is important, and listening must ultimately be followed by action.

She also recognizes that listening does not mean everyone will agree. Gibson said she intends to work with all residents, including those whose perspectives differ from her own. In an era when political divisions can make governing more difficult, she emphasized the importance of finding ways to work together.

"We need to work together to make Montrose County the best it can be."

While Gibson has extensive leadership experience, she readily acknowledged that county government will present a new learning curve. Her professional training and experience have largely been in public education, and she told us she still has much to learn about county governance. At the same time, she said she is willing to reconsider a position when new facts or information warrant doing so.

As a lifelong Montrose County resident with deep agricultural roots, Gibson identified agriculture, water, and local control as important priorities. She also emphasized transparency in the county budgeting process and the importance of residents understanding how public money is being spent.

There will be no shortage of difficult issues before the county. Gibson made a point of sharing that she has an uphill learning curve to get familiar with policies, budgets, and the many projects going on in the County. She looks forward to putting in the time to learn and listen.

Gibson also made a point that can sometimes get lost amid discussions of policies, budgets, and projects. County government depends on the people who do its work every day.

"Our county employees are our greatest asset," she said.

Neighbors for Good Governance came away from our conversation with an appreciation for Gibson's emphasis on listening, transparency, collaboration, and her willingness to continue learning as she takes on the responsibilities of county government.

Neighbors for Good Governance supports Caryn Gibson for Montrose County Commissioner, District 2.

Meet the City Council Candidates

Process for Appointing a Replacement for At-Large City Council Seat

Applications are being accepted for a vacancy in the At-Large City Council seat. The deadline to submit an application is 6 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, 2026.

On October 6, Councilor Adam Woodden resigned from the At-Large seat and, during the council's meeting that day, was reappointed to the vacant District IV seat, the district that Woodden resides in. As set forth by the City Charter, the City Council will formally vote to appoint a replacement within 30 days.

Anyone interested in filling the vacancy is asked to fill out an application and submit a letter of interest to the City Council. The council will interview potential candidates during the Monday, November 2 work session and then hold a formal vote to appoint a new councilor later that evening during the council's regular meeting. The council rescheduled the Tuesday, November 3 meeting due to Election Day.

Eligibility: To be eligible for appointment, applicants must be a resident of the City of Montrose for at least 12 consecutive months preceding the date of appointment and must be eligible to register to vote.

Candidate responses from applicants are posted below.

Beth McCorkle

1. Briefly tell us about yourself, your connection to Montrose, and the experiences that have prepared you to serve on City Council.

I'm a Colorado native and have called Montrose home since 2012. I retired in 2021 after a career as an IT project manager, where I learned to manage budgets and complex projects, ask hard questions, and bring people with different perspectives together. I now work part time with Region 10 RSVP, connecting volunteers with opportunities to serve our communities.

I serve on the Montrose Planning Commission and as president of my homeowners association. Those roles have given me experience reviewing proposals, listening to residents, and making decisions that affect my neighbors. I care deeply about Montrose and would bring preparation, sound judgment, and a willingness to work with everyone on Council.

2. Why are you seeking this City Council appointment, and what time and commitment are you prepared to devote to the position?

I'm seeking this appointment because I want to serve the people of Montrose and help our city plan thoughtfully for its future. Council decisions affect where we live, work, shop, and spend time together. I would approach those decisions with an open mind, respect for the public, and a commitment to explaining my reasoning.

I understand that serving means much more than attending Council meetings. I am prepared to devote the time needed to study materials, ask questions, meet with residents, attend other city and community meetings, and follow through on concerns. My part-time work gives me flexibility to make Council service a priority.

3. What experience or knowledge do you have with Montrose city government, and what do you see as the two or three most important challenges or opportunities facing the city?

Serving on the Planning Commission has helped me understand how land-use decisions are made and how they shape Montrose over time. I have also followed Council meetings and city issues closely. I value the expertise of city staff and believe Council should give them clear direction, ask thoughtful questions, and remain accountable for its decisions.

Three priorities stand out to me. First, we need to plan for growth so that housing, roads, water, and other services keep pace with the needs of residents. Second, we need to use public dollars carefully and make decisions with a clear understanding of long-term costs. Third, we need to strengthen public trust by giving residents meaningful opportunities to be heard and explaining how decisions are reached.

4. How would you determine what weight to give residents' input?

I would take every concern seriously, whether I hear it at a meeting, in an email, or in a conversation around town. I would ask questions to understand the person's experience and check the facts before reaching a conclusion. I would also seek out people who may be affected but have not spoken up, because the number of emails or speakers on one side does not necessarily tell us how the whole community feels.

I would weigh residents' input alongside the facts, legal requirements, staff expertise, costs, and the likely effects of a decision. People will not always agree with my vote, but they should know they were heard and understand why I made it.

Alejandro Salazar

1. Briefly tell us about yourself, your connection to Montrose, and the experiences that have prepared you to serve on City Council.

I'm a Colorado native, and I've lived in Montrose for about six years. This is home for me. I love rural living, keeping chickens, being close to nature, and being part of a community where you still run into people you know around town.

I'm the founder and Executive Director of Unify Montrose, where we help people have fair conversations and work through difficult issues together. My experience participating in Montrose's childcare assembly helped inspire that work. I watched people with very different backgrounds and perspectives sit at the same table, ask honest questions, listen to each other, disagree, and still work toward something useful.

That experience stuck with me. It showed me how different a hard conversation can feel when people believe the process is fair and their voice matters. I'd bring that approach to council, along with my engineering background and experience looking at everyday systems and asking, "How can we make this work better?"

2. Why are you seeking this City Council appointment, and what time and commitment are you prepared to devote to the position?

I hadn't planned to seek a council seat this soon. But this opening came during a period of tension, turnover, and stress in our community, and I kept coming back to whether I could be useful.

I want to help lower the temperature, listen, and help council work productively together. I'm especially interested in how we make decisions as a community, not just what decision we make. I'd come in with an open mind about the issues and the solutions residents, staff, and other council members bring forward.

As a younger working resident, I'd bring a perspective that I think is important to have at the table, while recognizing I have plenty to learn from others. My remote work gives me the flexibility to attend required meetings and give preparation and council responsibilities the time they deserve.

My listening work through Unify would continue, but I would keep the roles distinct, address potential conflicts openly, and recuse myself when appropriate.

3. What experience or knowledge do you have with Montrose city government, and what do you see as the two or three most important challenges or opportunities facing the city?

Through Unify Montrose and Montrose U, I've gotten to know city staff working in community engagement and development, along with residents, businesses, and community organizations. That's given me a better understanding of how something that feels simple from the outside can be much more complicated once you see the competing needs, limits, and responsibilities involved. I also know serving on council would require continued learning about city operations, budgets, and responsibilities.

I see three closely connected priorities. First, rebuilding trust and civility so residents, staff, and council can disagree without every disagreement becoming a fight. Second, involving people early enough that they can help shape options, especially residents who rarely attend traditional public meetings. Third, making decisions and follow-through clearer by explaining the tradeoffs, why a decision was made, and what happened with the input people gave.

To me, trust is built in those small moments. People need to know they were heard, even when the final decision isn't the one they wanted.

Those priorities would shape how I approach the issues before council. I want to learn from the community rather than arrive assuming I already have every answer.

4. An important part of serving on City Council is listening to residents, including those whose experiences or opinions may differ from your own. When residents raise concerns during public comment, through emails, or in other conversations, how would you determine what weight to give their input?

I value people who take the time to speak, write, or show up. It can take a lot to walk into a public meeting, stand at a microphone, and tell people what you're worried about. Their concerns deserve to be taken seriously. I would listen for what they are experiencing, what the city may be missing, and how a decision could affect them.

At the same time, the number or intensity of comments doesn't necessarily tell us what the whole community thinks. Sometimes the people most affected are also the least likely to be in the room. Hostile exchanges can make that worse by making others less willing to participate.

I'd want to understand whose perspectives we're hearing, whose might be missing, and how we can invite those voices in while respecting people's privacy.

Three minutes of public comment matters, but it shouldn't be the only way people can participate. We also need opportunities for fuller, healthier conversations where people can learn about complicated issues, ask questions, and weigh tradeoffs together.

Listening doesn't remove council's responsibility to make a decision. I would consider lived experience alongside evidence, costs, legal obligations, and staff expertise. Then I'd explain my reasoning clearly, including how residents' input shaped the decision, especially when the answer isn't what everyone wanted.

Cindee Williams

1. Briefly tell us about yourself, your connection to Montrose, and the experiences that have prepared you to serve on City Council.

My husband, Todd, and I have been visiting Montrose and the Western Slope regularly for more than 35 years. While helping our son move to Delta, we finally asked ourselves, "Why don't we live here?" That question eventually led us to choose Montrose as our home.

I bring more than 35 years of business ownership and leadership experience across several industries, along with experience in education, real estate and leadership development. I previously served as President of the Downtown Murrieta Merchants Association, working closely with business owners, City staff and Council. Today, I work as a Fractional Leadership Development Partner and am actively involved in several Montrose community organizations.

At the core of my leadership approach is a willingness to listen, ask thoughtful questions, bring people together and responsibly steward the opportunities and resources entrusted to us.

2. Why are you seeking this City Council appointment, and what time and commitment are you prepared to devote to the position?

From the time Todd and I arrived, we have been intentional about becoming part of this community, both personally and professionally. We have found Montrose to be filled with incredibly hardworking people with tremendous grit, generosity and love for their community.

I did not come to Montrose seeking public office, but when I was asked to consider applying, I saw an opportunity to bring my experience and skill set to the Council table. My desire is to help steward Montrose's growth so that 30 years from now, the values and character that make this community so special are still flourishing.

My professional schedule is flexible, and I am prepared to devote the time necessary for Council meetings, preparation, research and, most importantly, continuing to listen to and learn from the people of Montrose.

3. What experience or knowledge do you have with Montrose city government, and what do you see as the two or three most important challenges or opportunities facing the city?

Being involved in local organizations such as Black Canyon Rotary and others has given me opportunities to hear directly from City and community leaders about projects and initiatives underway, including the REC renovation, CMU, Youth City Council, housing and infrastructure. It has also put me in rooms where I can ask questions and participate in conversations as a citizen of Montrose. Since considering this appointment, I have attended a Council work session and regular meeting, reviewed recorded meetings, City plans and budgets, and spent additional time learning about issues currently facing our community.

Three interconnected areas stand out to me:

First is housing variety that meets the needs of our workforce and our community as a whole. We see housing construction happening throughout Montrose, which is encouraging. As we grow, the question is whether the housing we add provides the variety and options needed by the people who live and work here.

Second is infrastructure that keeps pace with responsible growth while recognizing our fiscal responsibilities. Roads, water, sewer, public safety and other City services need to grow alongside our community. That requires thoughtful long-term planning and responsible stewardship of resources.

Third is creating greater stability for our unhoused population and those at risk. I applaud the collaborative work already underway in Montrose. The opportunity now is to continue moving toward action plans and measurable results, particularly for individuals seeking stabilization and a path forward.

I don't presume to have all the answers. I believe good decisions begin by understanding what has already been done, examining the facts, listening to those closest to an issue and asking thoughtful questions about what comes next. From there, we can move toward thoughtful action and measurable results.

4. An important part of serving on City Council is listening to residents, including those whose experiences or opinions may differ from your own. When residents raise concerns during public comment, through emails, or in other conversations, how would you determine what weight to give their input?

I believe every resident deserves to be heard and treated respectfully, but listening does not mean the loudest voice automatically carries the most weight.

I would seek to understand the concern, determine whether it represents an individual experience or a broader issue, listen for perspectives that may be missing, and consider the facts along with legal, financial and operational realities.

I am genuinely curious about how people arrive at perspectives different from my own. I often ask, "Where is the 1% we can agree on?" We may not ultimately agree on a decision, but we can listen well, treat one another with respect and look for common ground from which to move forward.

Civic Education Resources

We make voting straightforward — from your mailbox to the ballot box.


📬 Ballot Readiness

Know when to expect your ballot and exactly what will be on it before it arrives.

  • 🗳️ Election Day: November 3, 2026

✉️ Voting by Mail

  • 📬 Ballots mailed the week of October 5
  • 📅 Last day to request a replacement mail ballot or register to vote and receive ballot by mail: October 26

What you need to know about Colorado's Gold Standard for Mail-In Ballots

🗳️ Issues & Candidates

Clear overview of races and measures to help you become an informed voter.


📅 November 3, 2026 General Election Dates

  • September 19: Military and Overseas ballots are mailed
  • September 23: Public welcome for Logic and Accuracy Testing (LAT) of voting system at 11:00 a.m.
  • Week of October 5: Ballots are mailed to ALL active, registered voters
  • October 19: Montrose County Elections Office Voter Service Polling Center opens
  • October 26: Last day to request a replacement mail ballot/register to vote and receive ballot by mail
  • October 29: Naturita Community Library Voter Service Polling Center opens
  • November 3: ELECTION DAY – Voter Service Polling Centers open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Ballots must be received no later than 7:00 p.m. Postmarks do not count
  • November 12: Last day to cure a signature issue on a mailed ballot. Military and Overseas (UOCAVA) ballots must be received by this date
Community Watch

Monitoring Local Government

We attend and review public meetings so our neighbors don't have to go it alone.


Who We Monitor

↳ Dr. Stephenson's Full Statement to the Board

Members of the Board,

I want to begin by addressing the notice I received from President Balleck on Monday morning at 9:19 a.m. In that notice, I was informed that a special meeting was being called for tonight to consider whether to place me on paid suspension from my duties as Superintendent. The stated reason was an allegation that I had recently addressed the staff at Olathe Elementary School regarding the outgoing principal in a way that was intimidating to employees and likely to interfere with the ongoing investigation.

President Balleck also indicated that an executive session would be placed on the agenda so that I could respond to the Board regarding these allegations. As the employee who is the subject of this proposed personnel matter, it is my right to request that this discussion occur in open session. That is what I have chosen to do. I have nothing to hide, and I believe our community deserves to know exactly what is being alleged and how this process has unfolded.

I want to state clearly and directly that I deny the allegations. I did not intimidate employees. I did not threaten employees. I did not discuss the investigation. I did not discourage anyone from participating in an investigation. I did not imply that there would be negative consequences for any employee who participated in an investigation.

The meeting with Olathe Elementary staff was held as part of the principal hiring process. Hiring principals is one of my responsibilities as Superintendent, and meeting with staff to gather input is a practice I have used in all other principal hiring processes. Olathe Elementary needs a new principal, and it was important to me to hear from the staff about the qualities they are looking for, what they want the next principal to know about Olathe Elementary, their hopes for the hiring process, and their fears or concerns as the process moves forward.

During that meeting, staff members were asked to provide input on charts around the room. The questions were focused on the future of the school and the hiring of the next principal. The conversation also included the reality that the climate and culture at Olathe Elementary are divided. That is not a secret, and it is not an accusation. It is a fact reflected in the most recent TLCC results, which are publicly available. I also shared that, regardless of who is hired as the next principal, I have been working to secure support from an outside organization, at the district's expense, to provide an external consultant to work with the staff next year on improving climate, culture, communication, and trust.

That was the purpose of the meeting. It was not about the investigation. It was not about pressuring staff. It was not about protecting anyone. It was about preparing for the next principal and supporting a school community that is in a difficult transition.

Another district administrator was present for the entire conversation. I understand that the Board has received that administrator's perspective. Before calling a special meeting to consider suspending me, President Balleck did not ask me what happened. She did not ask me what was said. She did not ask for my account of the meeting. The Olathe staff meeting occurred eleven days before I received notice of this special meeting, yet I was given only two and a half hours to respond to whether I wished to meet with the Board before a suspension was considered.

My dad used to say, "If something doesn't sit right, there is usually a reason." This process does not sit right.

When I first received a copy of allegations from a disgruntled employee that named several current employees, including me, I did what a professional superintendent should do. I stated that I should recuse myself from handling the matter and recommended that the district hire an independent investigator. I did that because I wanted the matter handled fairly, professionally, and without any appearance that I was influencing the process.

What happened next was highly unusual. Legal counsel quickly suggested that the matter become the responsibility of the Board rather than the district administration. The Board of Education does not typically insert itself into operational personnel matters in this way. From that point forward, I was not included in the process. I was not invited into an executive session to discuss the matter. I was not involved in selecting the investigator. I was not given the name of the investigator. I was not provided the scope of the investigation. I was not provided the timeline. In fact, the district has still not been contacted by the independent investigator. I was also not provided the cost, even though this is a district expense that ultimately impacts the district budget. To this day, I do not know how much this investigation is expected to cost the school district.

I also want to be clear that, to my knowledge, no lawsuit has been filed. Yet the Board has proceeded in a way that excludes the Superintendent from normal operational decision-making and appears to be treating unverified allegations as established fact.

During this entire process, I have not been asked by the Board to provide the district's response to the allegations. I have not been asked to explain the operational context. I have not been asked what actually occurred at the Olathe Elementary staff meeting before this proposed suspension was placed on the agenda.

I have sat through board meeting after board meeting where President Balleck and Vice President Valerio have attempted to discredit me, suggest that I have been insubordinate, and criticize me for not following directives that were not given by the Board as a body. A school board acts as a board only when it acts together in a properly noticed public meeting. Individual Board members, even the board president, do not have authority to direct the Superintendent, make employment decisions, or control district operations unless the Board has formally delegated that authority. That is state law.

I have tried to remain professional and focused on the work of the district because disruption and chaos are not healthy for students, staff, families, or the organization. But there comes a point when silence becomes harmful to the institution and to the truth.

Tonight, I am asking the Board to focus on facts, process, and governance. If the Board is considering placing me on suspension, I am asking each Board member to identify the specific facts supporting that action. Not hearsay. Not assumptions. Not political agendas. Specific facts.

Before any action is taken, I would ask the Board to consider the following questions:

What specific facts support the allegation that I intimidated employees or interfered with an investigation?

Was I ever asked for my account of the meeting, or was the administrator who attended the entire meeting consulted, before this special meeting was called?

And perhaps most importantly, was the decision to pursue this action discussed and directed by the Board as a whole, or is the Board being asked tonight to ratify a process that was initiated again by President Balleck without prior action of the full Board?

Finally, how does suspending the Superintendent based on an unverified allegation serve the best interests of the students, staff, and community of Montrose County School District?

I have dedicated my entire career to public education — 36 years — and 6 years to this district. I take my responsibilities seriously. I also take seriously the need for lawful governance, fair process, and truth.

For those reasons, I deny the allegations, I object to any suspension based on unsupported claims, and I respectfully ask the Board to vote no on the agenda item proposing my suspension. The facts do not support such action, and approving it would not reflect a lawful, fair, or transparent process.

Unfortunately, I am not finished. I also need to inform the Board that the concerns I am raising tonight are not isolated to this agenda item, nor are they limited to the events that led to this special meeting. They are part of a broader pattern of conduct that has interfered with my ability to perform my duties as Superintendent and has created serious concerns regarding Board governance, individual Board member authority, retaliation, and the misuse of process.

For that reason, tonight I am providing the Board with a formal grievance.

Formal Grievance:

Members of the Board,

At this time, I am submitting a formal grievance to the Montrose County School District Board of Education. The full written grievance is provided to each Board member. I am going to read a shortened version into the public record because the concerns raised in this grievance are serious, ongoing, and directly related to the action being considered tonight.

This grievance involves three related concerns: Board governance violations, serious concerns with the superintendent evaluation process, and retaliation.

At the center of this grievance is a continuing pattern in which individual Board members, particularly President Balleck, have acted outside the authority of the Board as a body. My employment agreement as well as state law is clear, that I serve under the leadership and direction of the Board acting as a body. It is also clear that I administer the District according to the policies, requirements, directives, and regulations of the Board acting as a body.

That distinction matters.

An individual Board member may ask questions. An individual Board member may forward concerns. But an individual Board member does not direct the superintendent, manage staff, control investigations, direct personnel matters, stop administrative work, alter evaluation timelines, or make employment decisions unless the Board has formally delegated that authority.

Over time, that line has been crossed repeatedly.

There have been multiple examples where President Balleck inserted herself into operational and personnel matters, expected individualized reporting and compliance from me, and then treated my insistence on proper process as resistance or insubordination. After the Board leadership shift in December, Vice President Valerio was also routinely copied on several communications involving Board and District matters, while the rest of the Board was often not included. That raises serious concerns about whether Board business, Board direction, and employment-related decisions were being handled outside the authority of the full Board.

One example involved concerns in 2025 related to Olathe Elementary. Rather than simply forwarding a concern through the superintendent and allowing the administrative process to proceed, then-Board member Balleck became directly involved in detailed operational matters involving classroom instruction, substitute qualifications, student services, GATE eligibility, field trips, principal conduct, staff concerns, and parent concerns. She identified staff and parent contacts, assessed credibility, questioned whether the principal was providing me with the full story, and later asked whether I had spoken with specific individuals and requested a synopsis of those discussions. That went beyond constituent communication. That was individual Board member involvement in administration. And that is why we are in this situation today.

Another example involved the legal services RFP process. President Balleck unilaterally directed me and district staff to initiate an RFP for legal services and copied the full Board by BCC. That created two concerns. First, an individual Board member does not have authority to direct district staff or initiate an operational process outside Board action. Second, because the communication involved Board business and was sent to the full Board outside a properly noticed meeting, it raises concerns under Colorado's Open Meetings Law.

Another significant example involves President Balleck's request for an investigation report related to an employee's complaint. On Sunday evening, March 29, 2026, after 9:00 p.m., President Balleck forwarded me the employee's complaint and directed me to provide her, Vice President Valerio, and legal counsel with the completed investigation report related to the employee's earlier complaint, or to confirm whether no formal investigation had been conducted. She requested that information by noon the next day and also stated that she intended to pick up a hard copy at approximately 1:30 p.m. I responded that evening and explained that I was just opening the email, had not had an opportunity to read it fully, would be in cabinet budget meetings the next day, and would respond by the end of the business day. Her requested timeline gave me less than 24 hours to review and respond.

In spite of that explanation, President Balleck again emailed the next morning directing me to have the information ready by 1:30 p.m. She then continued contacting me multiple times by text while I was in budget meetings. I again explained that I had been in budget meetings all morning, would get back to her by the end of the day, and that there was nothing at that point for her to pick up. She then texted, "Just so I am clear, are you declining to give me the information I am requesting by the time I requested it? I don't need your review of it before it comes to me." At that point, I did not believe continuing the exchange in writing would be productive, and I stepped out of an important budget meeting to call her. She was very angry with me.

The concern is not that President Balleck asked whether an investigation report existed. Board members may ask questions and forward concerns. The concern is that an individual board member demanded an immediate response to a confidential personnel-related matter on her condensed timeline, continued emailing and texting while I was in important budget meetings, and treated my need for time to review the request as if I were refusing to provide information. I did respond by the end of the business day, as I said I would. In that response, I explained that there was no formal written investigation report and also raised concerns about individual board member involvement in personnel matters, the need to maintain clear governance roles, and the importance of sharing information equitably with the full Board. Her repeated emails and texts during budget meetings, after I had already provided a reasonable response timeline, created unnecessary pressure and interfered with my ability to carry out important District work.

One day later, I received notice that President Balleck intended to place an item on the Board agenda to discuss reducing my salary. Simultaneously, according to the District's legal counsel invoice, there was a charge for legal services. So, after I did not comply with an improper individual directive on her timeline, and after I raised governance concerns, the matter escalated into a proposed adverse employment action possibly guided by our new law firm.

This represents a clear example of retaliation.

That is not normal governance. That is not fair process. And it is not how the Board-superintendent relationship is supposed to function.

The same pattern has appeared in other areas. When I moved forward with an administrative survey recommended by the demographer to gather community input on school consolidation and budget planning, President Balleck individually and harshly directed me not to send it. I did not agree that one Board member had the authority to stop an administrative survey. Since that time, both President Balleck and Vice President Valerio have publicly referenced that issue in a way that suggests I was insubordinate or disregarded Board direction. That is misleading. The direction did not come from the Board as a body. Immediately after this interaction, President Balleck proposed a resolution to require board approval prior to anyone in the district sending surveys. This was met with much resistance and was immediately revised to only affect district office. An example of how emotionally rushed retaliatory decisions result in division rather than collaboration.

The evaluation process has also been affected by this pattern. The superintendent evaluation is supposed to be based on written goals, agreed-upon criteria, and the collective judgment of the Board as a body. It is not supposed to be based on individual Board member complaints, late documentation, after-the-fact criticism, or operational matters that individual Board members personally pursued outside the Board process.

As early as my 2025 evaluation, individual concerns raised by then-Board member Balleck were pursued outside the collective Board process and later became part of an attempt to influence my evaluation record. The superintendent evaluation should reflect the agreed-upon goals and collective judgment of the Board as a body. It should not become a vehicle for individual Board member complaints, after-the-fact documentation, or personal dissatisfaction with the superintendent's adherence to proper governance boundaries. Additionally, as of Monday, the entire board was informed of a unilateral decision by President Balleck to delay my evaluation. Yet another example of state law and board policy violations.

Now, tonight, the Board is considering another serious employment action based on an allegation I deny, without my having been asked for my account before the special meeting was called. This is part of the same pattern.

When I question individual Board member authority, insist on proper process, or follow my understanding of my contractual role, the response has not simply been disagreement. The response has been agenda items, public criticism, evaluation concerns, proposed salary reduction, and now a proposed suspension.

I am submitting this grievance in good faith. I am asking for a prompt, independent investigation into the actions of the Board and individual Board members related to these matters, specifically President Balleck. That investigation should include potential violations of Board policy, Colorado's Open Meetings Law, my employment agreement, abuse of authority, retaliation, improper interference with superintendent authority, improper handling of evaluation materials, and related governance concerns.

I am also requesting written assurance that I will not be subjected to retaliation for raising these concerns, asserting my contractual rights, requesting compliance with Board policy and Colorado law, or participating in any investigation related to this grievance.

Finally, because I am committed to the success and organizational health of this district, I am requesting mediation and governance support to restore the Board-superintendent relationship. That should include a neutral mediator or facilitator and ongoing Board governance training focused on the role of the Board as a body, the authority of individual Board members, confidentiality, evaluation practices, and the appropriate handling of complaints and personnel-related concerns.

I remain committed to serving the students, staff, families, and community of Montrose County School District. But I cannot ignore conduct that interferes with my contractual authority, undermines my professional reputation, compromises the evaluation process, and creates a retaliatory employment relationship.

I respectfully request that this grievance be acknowledged in writing, placed on the Board's next agenda for appropriate consideration, and handled consistent with Board policy, Colorado law, and my employment agreement.

Community Watch

Meeting Notes

Summaries from public meetings attended by Neighbors for Good Governance volunteers.

📋 Montrose County Commissioner Agendas and Minutes — Agendas, Minutes & Upcoming Board Meetings

Montrose County School District Board Meeting | October 13, 2026

District Leadership, Staff, and Students Deliver Measurable Results

Black Canyon High School Shows Significant Academic Improvement

One of the meeting's most notable presentations came from Black Canyon High School students, who reported a substantial improvement in their school's performance rating.

The school's Colorado School Performance Framework score increased from 32% to 51.6%, moving Black Canyon from a Turnaround rating to an Improvement rating. This achievement is particularly significant because the school had remained in Turnaround status since opening. Students and staff deserve recognition for the sustained effort behind this improvement.

The results included strong performance in MAP reading and mathematics assessments, improvements in reading growth, and positive indicators in graduation readiness. The school also reported that 91% of students returned to Black Canyon.

Students acknowledged that challenges remain, particularly in attendance, mathematics growth, student engagement, and state assessment performance. The presentation offered a concrete example of educators and students making measurable progress while continuing to identify areas needing improvement.

Peak Academy Students Engage in University-Level Research

Peak Academy students and their teacher, Doug Eccher, presented their ongoing research into wildfire smoke, air quality monitoring, and affordable filtration systems. Their work has attracted the attention of the University of Colorado, which provided access to sophisticated air quality monitoring equipment valued at approximately $90,000. University engineers are expected to work directly with students throughout the school year.

The project goes beyond traditional classroom instruction. Students are investigating environmental concerns affecting their community, testing affordable air filtration solutions, developing components using 3D printing, and exploring potential business opportunities.

The advanced monitoring equipment had not yet been deployed at the time of the meeting, and the effectiveness of the lower-cost filtration systems remains under study. Nevertheless, the project reflects the initiative of district educators who are creating opportunities for students to engage in meaningful scientific research and practical problem-solving.

District Leadership Continues Implementing Long-Term Educational Goals

District administrators presented an update on the strategic plan, with an emphasis on expanding career pathways and preparing students for postsecondary education and employment. The district currently offers 16 career pathways designed to help students connect their interests and abilities with educational and employment opportunities.

Much of this work began several years ago, demonstrating that these initiatives are part of an ongoing effort rather than newly developed programs. The district's goal is for every graduate by 2029 to achieve at least one of three outcomes:

  • Earn 12 college credits.
  • Obtain an industry-recognized credential.
  • Complete a qualifying work-based learning experience.

Administrators projected that approximately 45%–55% of the Class of 2027 will meet at least one of these benchmarks. Although that projection remains below the district's ultimate goal, leadership was transparent about the work still needed, including expanding student access, strengthening data collection, and aligning college-credit offerings with evolving state requirements.

The district is also implementing the Xello career exploration platform, which helps students identify interests, develop academic plans, and prepare for future educational and employment opportunities. Additional certification opportunities in EKG and phlebotomy are being developed at Montrose High School.

These initiatives reflect substantial planning and coordination among district administrators, counselors, teachers, higher education institutions, and local employers. The presentation demonstrated that district leadership continues to pursue long-term educational improvements while managing the immediate operational needs of the school system.

Recognizing the Work Behind the Scenes

The meeting provided several reminders that the daily operation of a school district depends on far more than Board decisions. Teachers, principals, counselors, support staff, custodians, transportation personnel, and district administrators are responsible for maintaining safe and productive learning environments.

Board members reported visiting schools and observing literacy activities, student engagement, school improvement celebrations, and specialized learning programs. Facilities updates also included maintenance work, equipment needs, and staff training. These activities represent the ongoing responsibilities carried out by district employees, often without significant public attention.

The accomplishments presented during the meeting should be credited primarily to the students, educators, school leaders, and district personnel doing the work.

Their efforts deserve to be recognized independently of the Board's performance.

Board Governance and Leadership Challenges

In contrast to the presentations focused on educational progress, portions of the meeting involved Board vacancies, leadership changes, procedural questions, and disagreements about district operations.

Board Vacancy and Officer Selection

The Board addressed the resignation of District B representative Mr. Valerio and approved a process for filling the vacancy. The vacancy also required the selection of a new Board vice president. Two members were nominated, and Mr. Daly was elected.

The voting process included confusion about which candidate was under consideration, requiring clarification for a member participating remotely. Although the Board completed these actions, the proceedings illustrated the importance of clear procedures, communication, and consistent meeting management.

Superintendent Search

The Board approved the proposed process for seeking superintendent search services. The selection of a search firm, associated costs, and the eventual appointment of a superintendent remain matters for future Board action. Given the importance of stable district leadership, the transparency, consistency, and effectiveness of this process will warrant close public attention.

Board Policies and Community Representation

The Board considered several governance and policy matters, including electronic participation in meetings, graduation requirements, and physical intervention and restraint.

Members also addressed the District Accountability Committee's membership requirements and proposed policy revisions. Questions about committee appointments, membership terms, and representation will require continued attention.

The Board approved a survey to collect community feedback on school calendar options for the 2027–2028 and 2028–2029 school years.

It also approved adding a Montrose High School student advisory presentation as a standing monthly agenda item.

These actions establish processes for future input and decision-making. Their value will depend on whether community and student feedback meaningfully informs subsequent Board decisions.

Community Support for Schools

The district recognized two contributions supporting students and staff:

  • $20,000 from the Nina L. Weaver Charitable Trust for the Nina Weaver Scholarship Fund.
  • $1,000 from Merit Contracting Services to provide meals for Peak Academy staff during conferences.

These contributions reflect the role community partners continue to play in supporting public education.

Moving Forward: Educational Progress Requires Stable Governance

The meeting presented two distinct areas of responsibility within the school district. On the educational side, students, teachers, school administrators, and district leadership reported tangible progress and described ongoing work to improve academic outcomes and expand opportunities. Black Canyon High School's improved performance rating, Peak Academy's research partnership, and the district's career pathways initiatives are examples of work taking place within schools.

At the governance level, the Board continued addressing leadership vacancies, administrative processes, policy questions, and operational disagreements. The Board's responsibility extends beyond approving motions and receiving presentations. Effective governance requires informed decision-making, consistent procedures, responsible oversight, respect for professional expertise, and a stable environment in which district employees can do their jobs.

The Central Takeaway

The work of educating students has continued, and meaningful progress is being made by district employees and students. Those accomplishments deserve recognition on their own merits.

At the same time, the community has a legitimate interest in examining whether the Board is providing the stable, effective, and accountable governance necessary to support that work. The district's educational successes should not automatically be presented as evidence of successful Board leadership. As the district moves forward, the public should continue evaluating both student outcomes and the Board's ability to govern responsibly, transparently, and effectively. Ultimately, students and staff benefit when the Board provides clear direction, appropriate oversight, and the stability necessary for educators and district leaders to focus on their primary responsibility: student learning.

Montrose City Council | Regular Meeting | October 6, 2026 — Council Vacancy, Neighborhood Safety Concerns & City Operations

Montrose City Council Meeting Summary — October 6, 2026 | Montrose, Colorado

Council fills a vacancy through an unusual appointment process, residents raise neighborhood safety concerns, and city staff report progress on essential services and infrastructure.

The October 6 Montrose City Council meeting featured significant public participation, a change in council membership, and updates on important municipal operations. Residents expressed concerns about traffic and parking near Montrose High School and differing views on proposed City Charter amendments. Meanwhile, professional city staff continued their work on infrastructure improvements, public safety, technology, and community engagement.

Council Vacancy and Leadership Decisions

One of the meeting's most consequential actions involved filling the vacant District 4 council seat. Rather than selecting from applicants who had applied for the position, council unanimously appointed Adam Woodden, who had resigned his at-large council seat the previous day. This created a new at-large vacancy open to applicants from throughout the city, rather than only District 4 residents.

Councilor J. David Reed explained that he proposed the arrangement because council members had not reached a consensus on the existing District 4 applicants. He argued that appointing Woodden would allow council to agree on a candidate while expanding the pool of potential applicants for the newly vacant at-large position. Previously submitted applications would remain under consideration unless withdrawn. Woodden's appointment does not extend his current term; he would still face election in April 2028.

Although council described the decision as an effort to promote cooperation, the process raises reasonable questions about transparency, fairness to the original applicants, and whether shifting an elected council member into another seat is the best way to resolve disagreements over an appointment. The unanimous vote demonstrated agreement on the procedure, but the broader implications for public confidence remain worth considering.

Neighborhood Safety and Public Participation

A substantial portion of public comment focused on conditions in residential neighborhoods surrounding Montrose High School. Residents of South Fourth Street, South Fifth Street, and nearby areas described speeding, ignored stop signs, excessive vehicle noise, littering, trespassing, and parking congestion during school hours. Several emphasized that most students behave responsibly, but a smaller number are creating persistent problems for neighboring households.

Residents urged council to reinstate a residential permit-parking program that had previously been in place, increase police enforcement during school arrival, lunch, and dismissal periods, and consider additional traffic-calming measures. Suggestions included speed-monitoring equipment, improved stop-sign visibility, and greater coordination with school administrators. Speakers described the situation as both a quality-of-life concern and a potential public safety hazard. Council acknowledged the complaints and indicated that the concerns would be examined, although no specific corrective action was adopted during the meeting.

Public comments also reflected disagreement over four proposed City Charter amendments appearing on the November ballot. Dave Stockton opposed the measures, expressing concern about political influence and the importance of maintaining nonpartisan city government. Leah Vanderloo supported the amendments, citing term limits, election timing, and greater accountability in municipal administration. John Brown encouraged residents to research the proposals independently and participate in the election. These exchanges underscored the importance of informed public participation when considering changes to the city's governing document.

Youth Leadership and City Operations

Council appointed six students to the 2026–2027 Montrose Youth City Council following interviews that highlighted their interest in community service, employment opportunities, communication, and civic involvement. Youth City Council coordinators Briceida Ortega and Gunnison Clamp organized the application and interview process, helping create opportunities for young residents to participate in local government. A seventh applicant, Dylan Box, was not appointed that evening because his interview had been postponed.

Information Systems Director Greg Story presented two technology expenditures supporting essential city operations. Council approved the annual renewal of the NEOGOV human resources software subscription for $68,812.98, supporting recruitment, hiring, employee development, performance management, and regulatory compliance for a workforce of approximately 300 employees. Council also approved a three-year firewall maintenance and software-support agreement costing $80,767.64 annually. Story explained that the agreement would provide predictable pricing and maintain cybersecurity protections for both city operations and the Police Department. These purchases illustrate the less visible but essential work performed by city employees to maintain reliable administrative systems and protect municipal information.

Senior Planner William Reis also presented the second readings of ordinances approving the 4.2-acre Locust Road annexation and its R2 low-density residential zoning. Staff had previously reviewed the property's eligibility, utility connections, zoning compatibility, and applicable legal requirements. Council approved both ordinances, completing the annexation and zoning actions. The careful preparation and technical review by planning staff helped ensure that the decisions were supported by established procedures and development standards.

Infrastructure Progress and Public Safety

Utilities Director David Bries provided an encouraging update on the city's approximately $33 million wastewater treatment plant improvement project. Construction began earlier in 2026, and the project remained on schedule for completion in late 2027. A new ultraviolet disinfection system was already operational, major concrete work on a treatment basin had been completed, and additional equipment installations were being prepared. Approximately $11 million had been spent, representing roughly one-third of the project budget. Bries credited the contractor's performance and described the coordination required to maintain treatment operations throughout construction. The project represents a major investment in environmental protection, regulatory compliance, and the long-term reliability of essential public infrastructure.

Police Chief Blaine Hall recognized Detective Sergeant Michelle Barry for completing specialized Drug Enforcement Administration training and commended Sergeant J.C. Franklin and Officer Harrison Hall for recent drug enforcement work. He also reported that officers were using grant-funded overtime to increase impaired-driving enforcement, particularly on weekends. Hall announced a public information meeting concerning the Police Department's Flock camera system, with Crime Analyst Juan Haro participating in the presentation. These updates highlighted both the professional development of police personnel and ongoing efforts to address community safety concerns.

Interim City Manager Anne Morgenthaler also reported that Emergency Manager Paul Eller had completed a review of activities undertaken during the city's wildfire and fireworks emergency declaration. Staff planned to bring the report forward for council consideration and possible termination of the emergency declaration. This reflected the administrative follow-through necessary to ensure that temporary emergency powers receive appropriate review.

Looking Ahead

The October 6 meeting illustrated both the strengths and challenges facing Montrose city government. Residents demonstrated a willingness to participate in local decisions, raise legitimate concerns, and hold elected officials accountable. The council vacancy process and proposed Charter amendments highlighted ongoing questions about representation, governance, and public trust.

At the same time, city employees continued advancing important work in wastewater treatment, planning, public safety, technology, and youth engagement. These accomplishments reflect the preparation, technical expertise, and dedication of professional staff whose responsibilities continue regardless of political disagreements or changes in council membership.

Montrose benefits from a capable municipal workforce and an engaged community. The responsibility of elected leadership is to support that work through transparent decision-making, sound policies, meaningful public engagement, and consistent accountability.

Montrose City Council | Regular Meeting | September 15, 2026 — City Staff Advance Community Projects Amid Leadership Changes

Montrose City Council Meeting Summary — September 15, 2026 | Montrose, Colorado

City staff continue advancing important community projects amid leadership changes and ongoing questions about development and governance.

The September 15 Montrose City Council meeting highlighted the important work of city employees in maintaining services, improving infrastructure, protecting natural resources, and managing community development during a period of significant leadership transition. While council approved several staff-prepared projects and administrative actions, public comments reflected continuing concerns about city leadership, development policies, and accountability.

Leadership Changes and Organizational Stability

Council formally ratified its September 1 mutual separation agreement with former City Manager Bill Bell. City Attorney Chris Dowsey explained that the action was intended to address potential open meetings concerns because the original agreement had not been specifically identified in the earlier meeting notice. Council also approved Anne Morgenthaler as interim city manager and executive director of the Montrose Urban Renewal Authority. Morgenthaler, who has served the city in senior administrative positions for approximately eight years, received strong public support for her experience, qualifications, and collaborative leadership. Resident Beth McCorkle encouraged council to consider her for the permanent position. Morgenthaler emphasized the professionalism and dedication of city employees, thanking them for maintaining continuity through a difficult transition. Her remarks reinforced an important distinction: while elected leadership may change, the city's daily operations depend on the expertise and commitment of its professional staff.

Infrastructure, Parks, and Environmental Protection

Several agenda items demonstrated the value of long-term staff planning and responsible management of public resources. Parks Superintendent John Waschbusch presented the Rotary Park pump house replacement, a project developed over several years to maintain irrigation for more than eight acres of parkland and greenbelt. Following a competitive bidding process, council authorized up to $514,011 for the project. Community Development Director Jace Hochwalt also presented a $45,000 grant application to advance planning for the Montrose Audubon project, a proposed 25-acre nature and education destination featuring accessible trails, wildlife viewing, and habitat restoration. City Forester Mike Arat secured authorization to expend up to $329,723 in previously awarded forest restoration funding, while Hochwalt outlined an additional grant opportunity of approximately $516,000 for wildfire mitigation at Buckhorn Lakes. By leveraging existing grants and working with state partners, staff are pursuing significant environmental improvements while limiting demands on local resources. These efforts reflect the technical knowledge, preparation, and initiative of city professionals whose work often begins long before projects reach council for approval.

Development Review and Community Concerns

Senior Planner William Reis presented several development proposals, including the Locust Road annexation, a six-unit townhouse subdivision on East Star Court, and amendments to a previously approved townhouse development near Margot Court. Staff explained zoning requirements, infrastructure considerations, subdivision regulations, and Planning Commission recommendations. Council approved the applicable measures, including first readings of the Locust Road annexation and zoning ordinances. These presentations illustrated the detailed technical review performed by planning and engineering staff to ensure proposals comply with existing regulations.

Public comment, however, highlighted concerns about whether those regulations adequately protect established neighborhoods. Resident Matt Gulich questioned the city's minor-subdivision process, particularly in relation to the proposed Hub apartment development. He urged stronger buffering requirements, improved traffic-study oversight, and greater emphasis on ensuring growth pays its own way. He also questioned whether current development practices consistently reflect the Envision 2040 Comprehensive Plan's commitment to preserving Montrose's small-town character. These issues raise important policy questions for elected officials. City staff are responsible for administering adopted regulations, while City Council is responsible for determining whether those regulations adequately serve the community and should be revised.

Financial Management and Public Improvements

Sales and Use Tax Manager LeeAnne Whittaker presented the July revenue report, showing General Fund sales and use tax collections 1.9% above the previous year, with stronger growth in hotel and restaurant excise taxes. Her presentation provided valuable information about the city's financial position and demonstrated the importance of accurate, transparent financial reporting. Engineering staff also updated council on the CIP3 sewer improvements in northeastern Montrose and the Hillcrest sidewalk project near the golf course. Both projects involve substantial coordination, construction oversight, and efforts to minimize public inconvenience. These improvements reflect the ongoing work of employees responsible for maintaining essential infrastructure and protecting the city's long-term investments.

Public Participation and Governance

Public comments reflected both appreciation for municipal employees and differing views about recent leadership decisions. Scott Riba and John Brown thanked city staff, police officers, firefighters, sheriff's deputies, and community volunteers for their assistance with a September 11 memorial ceremony, providing a meaningful example of public employees supporting community activities beyond their regular duties. Other speakers addressed city leadership and representation. Cliff Faurer called for greater consideration of community diversity when filling leadership vacancies, while Jason Conant supported the direction of newly elected council members and emphasized elected oversight of city management. Ron Henderson defended the legitimacy of election results regardless of the margin of victory. These contrasting perspectives underscore the importance of transparency, respectful public participation, and clearly defined responsibilities between elected officials and professional administrators.

Looking Ahead

The meeting demonstrated that Montrose continues to benefit from an experienced and dedicated municipal workforce. City employees are advancing infrastructure improvements, securing outside funding, protecting natural resources, reviewing development proposals, and maintaining financial accountability despite organizational uncertainty. Council's role in approving projects and establishing policy is important, but the research, planning, technical analysis, and implementation behind much of the city's progress are the work of professional staff.

As Montrose moves toward filling its vacant council seat and selecting a permanent city manager, the community has reason to expect leadership that respects professional expertise, encourages public participation, and provides responsible oversight. City employees continue demonstrating their commitment to Montrose. Elected officials now have the responsibility to provide the stability, sound policies, and constructive leadership necessary for that work to succeed.

Montrose County School District Regular Meeting | September 8, 2026

Community Input

Four speakers addressed the board on transparency, district leadership, the superintendent transition, student/community voice, legal costs, and CORA requests (3-minute limit per speaker).

  • Allison Waford urged the board to broaden whose voices it relies on. She said student input means recognizing students' firsthand knowledge — not asking them to make adult decisions — and encouraged focus on building schools today's students need rather than recreating the schools adults remember.
  • Joan Morford expressed support for Dr. Stevenson, questioned why an investigative report was delivered verbally rather than in writing, and urged the board to ensure major decisions are made collectively and in accordance with state law.
  • Ellen Angelus linked the rise in CORA requests to transparency concerns, questioned legal billing, and raised concerns about Montrose Classical Academy enrollment and financial viability. (Public comment only — not board findings.)
  • Zo Warden said the district's strategic plan was difficult to locate online, expressed concern about the cost of Dr. Stevenson's separation, questioned central-office staffing levels, and asked Director Scarboro to become more visibly engaged in board discussion and school visits.

Major Business

  • FFA students recognized for achievements at county and state fairs
  • $5,000 grant for North Side Health Clinic; $27,000 Red Hawk Sports donation to MHS Athletic Fund acknowledged
  • September work session moved to September 23 at 7:00 p.m.

CORA / Transparency

CORA requests surged: 17/year in 2023–24 and 2024–25; 68 in 2025–26; already 64 early in the current year. The district has added personnel and is maintaining files on frequently requested topics to reduce duplicated work.

Board Goals & Strategic Plan

Three goals: (1) strategic-plan oversight and accountability; (2) board engagement, visibility, and community connection; (3) governance and board effectiveness. The board favored monthly ~20-minute implementation-team updates over quarterly hour-long presentations.

Financial & Enrollment

  • General-fund ending balance: ~$18.8M, ~$549K better than budget
  • Medical fund: ~$2.9M, substantially better than projected
  • Enrollment (Sept. 3): 5,443 district + 149 MCA = 5,592 total; down 305 from prior year (213 attributed to Vista; net decline of 92)
  • Of MCA's 149 students, 90 were former district students; ~59 were new to the district

Purchases Approved

  • Replacement 4WD vehicle: up to $65,000 (offset by ~$15,000 insurance proceeds)
  • Special-education services via Blazer Works: ~$114,000
  • Subject curriculum license for Black Canyon HS: $30,000, one-year Title I-funded evaluation
  • Technology refresh: up to $300,000 ($200K lease fund, $100K general fund, both budgeted)

District Accountability Committee

DAC membership ratification postponed to September 23 pending legal clarification on board policy, DAC bylaws, and state statutory requirements — particularly business/industry and charter-school parent representation.

Policies — First Readings

Electronic board participation; graduation requirements (including proposed 0.5-credit financial literacy for Class of 2028); student absences; physical intervention/restraint. Public invited to submit feedback before next meeting.

Executive Session

Board unanimously entered executive session to discuss interim superintendent candidates and confidential documents.

Overall Takeaway

The meeting combined routine financial, enrollment, technology, and curriculum business with a significant underlying theme of public trust and transparency during the superintendent transition. Community speakers called for clearer communication, broader involvement, and stronger board engagement while the board addressed CORA workload, DAC compliance, and the interim-superintendent process.

Montrose City Council | Regular Meeting | September 1, 2026 — Charter Amendments, Election Controversy & City Business

The Montrose City Council, led by Mayor Michael Badagliacco, held its regular meeting on September 1, 2026. Much of the meeting centered on proposed City Charter amendments, the April 2026 municipal election, election integrity and public trust, and the appropriate balance between City Council oversight and professional city administration.

Election Controversy & Public Comment

Public comment was extensive and at times contentious. Several residents raised concerns about the April 2026 municipal election and called for greater transparency or further examination. Other residents defended Montrose's tradition of nonpartisan municipal government and objected to partisan framing of the charter amendments. Councilor Reed emphasized that municipal government and basic city services should not be treated as partisan matters.

Four Charter Amendments Advanced to Voters

Council considered four ordinances proposing amendments to the Montrose City Charter for submission to voters on November 3, 2026:

  • Ordinance 2727 — Election Date: Moves Montrose's regular municipal elections from April to November of even-numbered years. Adopted on second reading.
  • Ordinance 2728 — Term Limits: Establishes a lifetime limit of eight years of elected City Council service after November 3, 2026, in any combination of two- and four-year terms. Appointed service to fill vacancies would not count. Adopted on second reading.
  • Ordinance 2729 — Police Chief: Requires City Council approval of the city manager's appointment or discharge of the police chief. The city manager would continue to initiate personnel decisions. Adopted on second reading.
  • Ordinance 2730 — City Clerk: Requires City Council approval of the city manager's appointment or discharge of the city clerk. Some residents warned this could politicize a professional administrative position. Adopted on second reading.

The broader debate focused on two competing concerns: supporters emphasized greater elected accountability; opponents warned that expanding council involvement in personnel decisions could politicize Montrose's council-manager form of government.

Other Council Actions

  • Approved minutes from the August 17 special meeting and August 18 regular meeting
  • Approved purchase of an F-150 for the Police Department for $63,500 from a state-bid-award vendor
  • Approved a $325,000 contribution to Colorado Mesa University: $250,000 for the CMU Foundation Permanent Endowment Fund and $75,000 for the CMU–City of Montrose scholarship fund
  • Adopted Ordinance 2723, vacating portions of a drainage easement in the Sunrise Creek area

Development & Subdivision Approvals

  • Valley Ranch Subdivision Filing 1 — 15 residential lots from an approximately 96-acre site; remaining acreage reserved for future filings. Approved.
  • Brookside Meadows Subdivision Filing 1 — 46 residential lots on approximately 20.49 acres, with right-of-way, open space, and easement dedications. Approved.

Roads & Infrastructure

  • The 6700 Road bridge is approximately 80% designed; construction anticipated to begin in late 2027. Plans contemplate eventual road widening and a future roundabout at Miami Road and 6700 Road.
  • A contractor replacing a water line on Miami Road encountered fragments of asbestos-cement pipe. CDPHE requested work stop while cleanup requirements were addressed. City staff stated there was no threat to the public.
  • A recently opened roundabout project was reported approximately $1 million under budget, used only ~4% of contingency, and was approximately 99% complete.

Executive Session

Near the end of the meeting, Council entered executive session concerning a personnel matter and legal advice related to City Manager Bill Bell's employment status and employment agreement.

Bottom Line

The consequential action of the September 1 meeting was the council's advancement of four charter amendments to the November 3, 2026 ballot — amid a highly charged public debate over election integrity, transparency, the role of professional city staff, and whether partisan politics is becoming more influential in Montrose municipal government.

Montrose City Council | Work Session | August 31, 2026

The work session covered three main updates:

Rotary Park Pump House

The city plans to replace the aging pump house and irrigation equipment. FCI Constructors submitted the low bid of $467,283, with authorization requested up to $514,011 including contingency.

Park / River Cleanup

A roughly five-week project will remove Russian olive and tamarisk, reduce wildfire fuels, and temporarily close some trails and disc-golf areas. Restoration will follow later.

Police Update

The department reported on employee training, community activities, and recent drug seizures.

Montrose City Council | Special Meeting | August 26, 2026 — April 2026 Election Concerns & Independent Investigation

The special meeting focused on whether the council should enter executive session for legal advice regarding issues raised about the April 2026 election.

Key Points

  • Mayor Michael Badagliacco supported having an independent third party investigate the April 2026 election and initially proposed limiting the executive session to council and the city attorney.
  • The city manager argued he should be present when council discussed matters involving employees under his supervision, and that excluding him would not be in the City's best interest.
  • Some council members said they understood the meeting to concern a possible investigation — not the hiring of independent legal counsel — and questioned whether retaining another attorney had been properly noticed.
  • The city attorney explained that the attorney's client is the City as an organization, not individual council members or employees, and that professional obligations are governed by Colorado ethical rules.
  • Mayor Badagliacco stated his objective was to have an impartial third party determine what happened during the election, and that he believed some information in the city attorney's memorandum was incorrect.

After considerable debate and formal objections, the council moved to enter executive session under C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(b) to receive legal advice concerning the April 2026 election. The executive session began at approximately 6:50 p.m. and was electronically recorded.

Key Takeaway

The meeting centered on whether concerns about the April 2026 election warranted an independent investigation, who should participate in those discussions, and whether independent legal counsel was necessary or properly included within the meeting's stated purpose.

Montrose County School Board Special Meeting | August 24, 2026 — Regarding Employment of Dr. Carrie Stevenson

MCSD Board Approves Proposed Separation Agreement with Superintendent — Questions About Investigation Remain

At a special meeting of the Montrose County School District RE-1J Board of Education, the board took action regarding Superintendent Dr. Carrie Stevenson following an executive session.

The board unanimously approved a motion concerning a proposed employment separation, resignation, and release agreement with Dr. Stevenson.

Under the motion, district legal counsel is authorized to present the proposed agreement to Dr. Stevenson and her counsel and make non-material technical or clarifying changes needed to finalize it. Those changes cannot materially increase the district's financial obligations or substantially alter the terms approved by the board.

If Dr. Stevenson accepts the agreement within those parameters, the board president is authorized to execute the final agreement on behalf of the district without additional board action.

Before the vote, Director Hovde stated, for the record, that although they might vote for the outcome, they had "concerns about the process and how we came to this decision."

The motion passed unanimously.

Questions about the independent investigation remain.

Notably, during this public portion of the meeting, the board did not present or discuss findings from the approximately three-month independent investigation into allegations involving Dr. Stevenson and members of the Olathe Elementary School staff.

The absence of publicly presented findings leaves an important question for our community: What did the independent investigation conclude?

Neighbors for Good Governance believes the community deserves transparency about an investigation of this significance. To the extent permitted by Colorado law and applicable personnel/privacy requirements, we believe the district should make the final investigative report—or as much of it as legally can be released—available to the public.

A separation agreement should not, by itself, end the public's legitimate interest in understanding what was investigated, what was found, and how those findings informed the board's decisions, if at all.

Montrose County School Board Special Meeting | August 24, 2026, Part 2 — What Is the Board's Plan for Dr. Jessica Kalb?

Another Unanswered Question: What Is the Board's Plan for Dr. Jessica Kalb?

There was another significant issue at the special MCSD Board meeting that deserves the community's attention.

After approving the proposed separation agreement with Superintendent Dr. Carrie Stevenson, the board voted to enter executive session for a specifically stated purpose: to discuss Dr. Jessica Kalb's acting superintendent assignment, including the duties and compensation associated with that assignment.

Yet when the board returned to public session, there was no public discussion or action concerning Dr. Kalb's assignment, duties or compensation.

That is particularly concerning given the extraordinary responsibilities Dr. Kalb has been carrying.

Since Dr. Stevenson was placed on leave, Dr. Kalb has been serving as acting superintendent while continuing her regular responsibilities as Executive Director of Academic Services. She has also taken on responsibilities previously handled by longtime district administrator James Pavlich following his resignation.

That is an enormous professional, physical, and emotional load to place on one person—particularly during a period of significant turmoil and leadership transition within the district.

Pavlich's departure also cannot simply be viewed in isolation. Before leaving the district, he raised serious concerns with the Board about district governance and leadership. Among the issues he identified were Dr. Stevenson's removal, the role of the Board's legal counsel, and what he described as a breakdown in the boundary between Board governance and district administration.

Pavlich specifically warned that empowering Board President Neisha Balleck with what he viewed as executive authority represented an "abdication" of the Board's responsibility and could ultimately affect students. He also wrote that "the distinction between Board governance and executive administration has broken down."

Those concerns make the current leadership structure—and the workload being placed on Dr. Kalb—even more important for the public to understand.

Neighbors for Good Governance is concerned not only about the sustainability of this arrangement, but also about the Board's plan for filling the leadership vacancies that have contributed to it.

The community should also be told what responsibilities Dr. Kalb is currently expected to carry, whether those responsibilities are temporary, and how the district intends to ensure that one administrator is not expected to indefinitely perform multiple high-level jobs.

Neighbors for Good Governance is asking the Board to publicly clarify:

  • What are Dr. Kalb's current duties as acting superintendent in addition to her existing position?
  • How long does the Board anticipate this arrangement continuing?
  • Has her compensation been adjusted to reflect the additional responsibilities?
  • Which of James Pavlich's former responsibilities has Dr. Kalb assumed?
  • Does the Board intend to post and fill Pavlich's former position, and if so, when?
  • What is the Board's broader plan for restoring a sustainable district leadership structure?
Montrose County School Board | August 11, 2026 — Superintendent & District Update

The Montrose County School District board meeting focused heavily on the future of Superintendent Dr. Carrie Stevenson, who remained on administrative leave while the board considered an investigation and related personnel matters. Public comment revealed a deeply divided community. Numerous teachers, principals, former educators and residents defended Stevenson, describing her as an effective leader and arguing that the district needs stability. Others supported the board's scrutiny of her leadership or called for her removal.

A recurring concern was how the board has handled the situation, not simply whether Stevenson should stay or go. Speakers questioned the use of executive sessions, the investigation process, the roles of attorneys and investigators, transparency, and whether the board was following appropriate governance procedures. Others raised concerns about the financial consequences, including legal and investigation expenses, the cost of paying Stevenson while on leave and the potential cost of terminating her contract — all while the district is confronting declining enrollment and possible school closures. Those financial figures were claims made during public comment rather than findings by the board.

After lengthy executive sessions, the board took two significant actions. First, it denied a grievance associated with Stevenson, although it acknowledged that some communications could have been handled more clearly and that a written-goal step had not been separately documented. The board rejected allegations of unlawful board action, retaliation, Open Meetings Law violations, interference with the superintendent's authority and a hostile or retaliatory employment relationship. That decision passed 5–2.

More importantly, the board did not fire Stevenson and did not return her to work. Instead, it voted unanimously to extend her administrative leave pending further review of performance matters and instructed legal counsel to pursue options discussed in executive session. That left her future with the district unresolved.

The board also unanimously authorized a one-year CDE licensure authorization for Dr. Jessica Kalb, apparently allowing the district's interim superintendentship arrangement to continue while the Stevenson matter remains unresolved.

Outside the superintendent controversy, the district reported progress implementing its five-year strategic plan, including career pathways, mastery learning, attendance, family partnerships, student safety and belonging, and instructional improvement. The board also spent considerable time examining expenditures and contracts, health/wellness programming, technology costs and other items that had been pulled from the consent agenda for more discussion.

The meeting also highlighted the strain the controversy is putting on district employees. After executive session, the board president acknowledged staff uneasiness following release of a whistleblower report and encouraged board members to support employees as the new school year begins. Staff described the situation as unsettling but emphasized that their focus would remain on students.


Montrose City Council | August 18, 2026 — Appeal to the Council by Councilman J. David Reed

August 18, 2026 — By Councilman J. David Reed. Mayor and members of Council, I want to speak tonight not as someone who opposes the ideas being discussed, but as someone who believes deeply that how we do this matters as much as what we do. We have been moving through this Charter amendment process quickly. And I understand the desire to move forward. There are legitimate concerns on the table. Some of these proposed changes may well have merit. I am not here to say they don't. But I am here to say this: the Charter belongs to the people. Not to us. We did not write it. We were not elected to rewrite it on their behalf without their meaningful participation. We were elected to serve them — and right now, serving them means slowing down. There is no emergency here. There is no crisis that requires these amendments reach the November ballot on this timeline. What we have is a process that has moved from nine proposed amendments down to four in just a matter of weeks — without a citizen-led Charter Review Commission, without the kind of broad community engagement that a document this important deserves. I have heard from residents who feel rushed. I have heard from residents who are confused about what is being changed and why. I have heard from residents who came to this chamber and asked us to pause — and who felt that their voices did not change the outcome. A 3-2 vote is not a mandate. It is a signal that we are not yet in agreement. And when a Council is not in agreement on something this significant, the right response is not to proceed anyway. The right response is to ask: what would it take for all five of us to stand together? I believe that answer is available to us. I believe we can address the legitimate concerns of those who want reform and the legitimate concerns of those who want caution — without taking anything away from either group. What we cannot give back, once we have spent it, is trust. If we move forward on a narrow vote, on a compressed timeline, without the kind of process that allows residents to feel genuinely heard, we may pass amendments — but we will have done so in a way that leaves half the community feeling that the Charter was changed without them. That is not a victory. That is a wound. Slowing down is not weakness. Slowing down, when the stakes are high and the community is divided, is leadership. It is the willingness to say: we want to get this right more than we want to get this done. I am asking my colleagues to consider what we stand to gain by taking more time. A broader conversation. More residents at the table. The possibility of a unanimous or near-unanimous Council standing behind whatever we ultimately recommend. That kind of unity sends a message to our community that this was done with care, with integrity, and with them in mind. The greatest responsibility we have as elected officials is not to pass legislation. It is to bring people together. To make citizens feel that their government is listening. To demonstrate that this Council is worthy of the trust placed in us. We have an opportunity to do that tonight — by choosing a different path. I am appealing to each of you. Let all five of us stand together and say something to the people of this community. Let us say: "This is your Charter. This is your government. This is your community. Come to the table. We are ready to listen." That is the message I believe Montrose deserves to hear from its Council. And I hope tonight, we find a way to say it together.

Montrose City Council | Proposed Charter Amendments — Redlined Text & Ordinances | August 2026

The City of Montrose published a redlined charter and passed three ordinances on first reading (3-2 vote) at the August 18 meeting. Second reading and public comment: September 1, 2026, 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers. Ord. 2727 — Move Elections April → November: Shifts general municipal elections to November of even years. Districts I & II elected 2026/2030+; Districts III & IV elected 2028/2032+; at-large seat every two years from 2026. Ord. 2728 — Term Limits: District seats capped at two consecutive 4-year terms (8 years max). At-large capped at four consecutive 2-year terms. Combined service cannot exceed 8 consecutive years. Four-year waiting period after reaching the limit. Ord. 2729 — Council Approval of Police Chief: Requires City Council to approve the city manager's appointment or removal of the police chief. A related amendment extends this to the city clerk. Other redlined changes: gender-neutral language throughout; recall petition threshold raised from 15% to 25% (second recall within same term requires 50%); majority vote required to enter executive session; updated meeting notice publication rules. Redlined charter: cityofmontrose.org/188/Elections.

Montrose City Council | August 13, 2026 — Amendments to Charter

Despite repeated statements made by Montrose City Councilors David Reed & Dave Frank and by constituents during public comments requesting that proposed amendments to the City Charter be removed from consideration (since it is unclear what problems the proposed amendments are attempting to fix), the City Council, on a 3-2 vote decided to continue the 'rushed' process of preparing proposed amendments to the City Charter (without the guidance of a citizen-led Charter Review Commission). The original 9 amendments proposed on June 01st, whittled to 7 proposed amendments by July 29th stood at only 4 by the end of the August 04th City Council meeting. The four proposed amendments remaining on the Montrose City Council agenda scheduled for two readings are as follows: Shifting municipal elections from April to November; Instituting 8 year term limits for city council members; Shifting the Police Chief to a Manager-Council system; Shifting the City Clerk to a Manager-Council system. Attendance by residents in the City of Montrose is strongly recommended during the 1st reading of the proposed amendments to the City Charter on August 18th and during the 2nd reading on September 01st. It will be very important to pay attention to the wording in the proposed amendments and to provide public comment to the councilors.

Montrose City Council | August 4, 2026 — Proposed Charter Amendments & Public Comment

On Tuesday evening, August 04th, the Montrose City Chamber was filled to capacity during the City Council meeting. On the agenda: discussion of proposed amendments to the City Charter. The Montrose County Republican Central Committee had canceled their regularly scheduled meeting for August 04th and encouraged their members to attend the city council meeting "in a show of support for 'their' 3 council members." Throughout the evening, constituents lined up to present public comments. But what is missing from the public record [with a single exception] are the voices of the contingent that had been encouraged by the Montrose County Republican Central Committee to fill seats at the August 4th session. Why were these voices, despite filling the seats at the City Chambers, silent during public comment at the August 04th city council session? Proposing amendments to a city charter requires diligent engagement in the process and familiarization with complex municipal rules. The lightning speed at which Mayor Badagliaccio has pushed the process of proposing amendments to the City Charter during June and July has made it difficult for constituents to keep up. Members of the City Council have also been taken by surprise when examples of unintended consequences were brought to their attention by citizens conducting due diligence. 'Catching up' by attending one city council session proved inadequate for newcomers to articulate a position on the proposed amendments during public comments. Many left the session early. If constituents find it overwhelming to comment at a city council session, how will constituents be prepared to fully understand the proposed amendment wording on the ballot when voting in November? Slow the Process down!

Montrose City Council | August 3, 2026 — City Elections Integrity

From the August 03, 2026 City Council Work Session recording (starting at the 1:43 mark): Councilor Frank: "The City of Montrose contracts with Montrose County to run all the city elections. We don't run our city elections independently." Councilor Woodden: "The final 42 ballots were not run through the county machines to save them for the curing process; so the 42 ballots and any cured ballots were not run through the county machines; those were counted by the city staff rather than going through the county." Montrose City Clerk Lisa DelPiccolo: "The reason that those remaining ballots were not taken to the county was because there was a question as to the election office staff members there being impartial. I knew that it was a very tight race and to ensure the integrity of the April 2026 election that I was designated election officer over, I decided to count those myself. So I stand behind what I did. 100%" According to an opinion article printed in the Montrose Daily Press: "David White claims that there is a breach of contract between Montrose County and the City of Montrose in how the ballots were handled during the City of Montrose municipal elections held in April 2026." "In an email response from Montrose County Attorney Julie Andress to City Attorney Chris Dowser, Attorney Andress clearly states that there was no breach of contract." As Beth McCorkle states in an opinion article: "…week after week, the Mirror has provided David White space to question the integrity of Montrose city elections and make serious allegations about our election system without providing meaningful evidence to substantiate those claims." Montrose City administration has defended the integrity of the municipal election process. During the City Council work session held on August 17th, Councilor Frank stated: "Our city clerk is recognized around the State of Colorado as one of the elite, top tier city clerks and this offends me, that they are calling out and misrepresenting an election that they won." Montrose City Councilors Dave Frank and David Reed encourage citizens to speak up about this municipal election that is being misrepresented.


Guest Editorial

Community Voices

Perspectives from neighbors across Montrose County.

"Giving My Daughter More Than Memories" — Aimee Tooker, Nucla · Montrose Daily Press, July 8, 2026

Aimee Tooker, Nucla — Montrose Daily Press, July 8, 2026

I bring my teenage daughter with me to meetings and conferences whenever I can. I hope that, beyond the distractions of her phone, something reaches her heart and helps her understand the importance of what we are learning together. Building relationships, connecting with good people, and having a seat at the table are all part of public service, and I hope those lessons stay with her.

She loves her family, our home, our animals — we practically have a zoo — and our West End Montrose County community. Those are the qualities that make a good public servant. Maybe she will never stand behind a microphone, but perhaps she will be the one quietly doing the work behind the scenes, fulfilled simply by knowing she helped make something better.

This past April, we visited Jamestown and Yorktown, a trip that had been on my bucket list for years. Standing where our nation's story began was humbling. I hope to take the other kiddos one day, although I think next time we'll trade airplanes for a train ride.

As we reach the 250th anniversary of the United States and the 150th birthday of Colorado, I wanted to leave my daughter with something more lasting than memories.

To my amazing, wonderful, beautiful, perfect daughter (that's what you call yourself whenever you want something):

Freedom did not simply appear on paper. It was purchased through fear, sacrifice, hardship, and courage. It was defended by men and women who endured hunger, cold, loss, and war so that generations they would never meet could live in liberty.

Never forget that the rights you enjoy were paid for by people willing to give everything. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist because freedom must be protected, and that responsibility now belongs to your generation.

Don't sit on the sidelines. Read. Ask questions. Learn history. Attend community meetings. Speak with respect, even when you disagree. Defend the rights of others as fiercely as your own. A republic survives because ordinary citizens choose to participate.

I pray you never experience the horrors of war or the grief carried by those who have served. But never let the comfort of peace cause you to forget the price that secured it.

Love your country enough to improve it. Build your faith, your home, and your family. Let God guide your character and your decisions. Respect the flag — not because America is perfect, but because it represents sacrifice, hope, and the continual work of liberty.

May you always protect your freedom with your voice, your vote, your service, and your character. Freedom is both an inheritance and a responsibility, made possible by people who believed you were worth fighting for.

I love you to the moon and back.

Love,
Your outspoken, opinionated, amazing... and not-so-perfect mom.

— Aimee Tooker, Nucla

"Neighbors for Good Governance Is a Non-Partisan Community Group" — Lynn Schneider, Montrose · July 20, 2026

Lynn Schneider, Montrose — July 20, 2026

Forty years ago last month, I moved to Montrose with my family. I knew from previous visits it felt like 'home'. Having grown up in a small northwestern Kansas community, I valued knowing almost all the people in our town and county. We rallied in crises and protected each other when challenges presented. Common sense and a pragmatic approach to problem solving was expected. Mutual respect, honesty, and integrity in personal business and community concerns gave us a deep feeling of pride. They were the order of the day. I saw and felt those qualities in Montrose 40 years ago. I was proud to live here.

Lately, the explosiveness, the disregard for the rule of law, the personal agendas and vendettas all seem to be alive and well in our 'representative' government entities. It is sad to see the drama, divisiveness, and personal attacks eroding the morale of our community and the delivery of services to citizens and students. This environment and unprofessional style of leadership creates apathy and discourages many qualified people from running for office. No one wants to be a part of the circus. I, for one, don't recognize our community.

By becoming more involved in local issues, local elections, and nominating well-qualified and informed candidates for office, we can reclaim our community. Citizens that are well informed and remain current on governance topics and issues will be a more responsible and educated electorate. It is imperative that nominated elected candidates become informed and conversant in the local, state, and national regulations for the office they are seeking. Having this awareness allows for more effective and efficient participation and a seamless transition. Clearly understood and defined responsibilities, role limitations, and job descriptions are important ingredients in successful service and productive government.

Neighbors for Good Governance is a nonpartisan community group dedicated to strengthening and stabilizing local governments by supporting candidates dedicated to exemplary leadership skills, accountability and respectful civic discourse.

I for one want to return to the type of governance we can respect and a community of which we can be proud. I am committed to staying more informed and educated for the betterment of our community and bringing back respect and civility. Montrose is my home and I love it.

— Lynn Schneider, Montrose, Colorado

"None of Us Have a Monopoly on Wisdom" — David Gann, Montrose · Montrose Daily Press, June 20, 2026

David Gann, Montrose — Montrose Daily Press, June 20, 2026

In a healthy democracy, public service does not belong only to elected officials. Citizenship is also a form of public service.

When I served as a Montrose County commissioner, the people I worked with, whether elected, appointed, or employed, were not merely representatives of an ideology. They were stewards of institutions, budgets, infrastructure, public safety, and public trust.

Their responsibility was not to champion ideas. Their responsibility was to make decisions, accept accountability, and adjust when circumstances changed. That requires something more than conviction. It requires humility.

One of the most important lessons public service taught me is that ideology starts with answers, but governance starts with questions.

What problem are we trying to solve? What are the tradeoffs? What evidence do we have? What happens if we are wrong?

Those questions sound simple. In practice, they are difficult and uncomfortable.

As I watch local boards and committees today, priorities continue to compete for attention and resources. Should we repair roads or expand facilities? Spend more today or save for tomorrow? Those questions rarely come with perfect answers.

What I learned over the years is that better outcomes often emerge when people are willing to listen, reconsider, and be persuaded by better information. None of us have a monopoly on wisdom.

Public service is open to everyone. But governing well requires more than a willingness to serve. Can you listen? Can you evaluate competing information? Can you manage a budget? Can you work with people who disagree with you? Can you make difficult decisions when every option carries controversial consequences?

Those are governance questions. And they matter regardless of ideology.

I have had the opportunity to serve on boards, councils, committees, and in elected office. I have met people with strong opinions who struggled to govern effectively. I have also met people whose politics differed dramatically from my own, but who knew how to listen, deliberate, compromise, and solve problems. Almost invariably, the enduring work was accomplished by the latter.

That may be the most important lesson public service taught me. Communities are not built by certainty. They are built by people willing to learn, listen, adapt, and keep showing up.

Like any craft, governance is never mastered; it is learned, applied and refined over time.

— David Gann, Montrose — Neighbors for Good Governance

Have a perspective to share? We welcome guest editorials from Montrose County neighbors.


Why Participation Matters

Most of us will never influence a presidential election. But every day we are influenced by local government — the quality of our schools, public safety, water systems, land use, economic development, and parks and community services.

These decisions are not made in Washington. They are made here — by neighbors who show up, because democracy works best when we do.

Get Involved

Everyone has a role to play in building a stronger Montrose County. Here's how you can help right now.

  • Follow & Share — Follow us on Facebook and share your thoughts with the community.
  • Attend & Document — Join us at public meetings or help with note-taking and publishing accurate summaries.
  • Join the Conversation — Participate in listening sessions and community conversations — your perspective matters.
  • Spot Future Leaders — Know someone respected and service-minded in Montrose? Encourage them to step forward.

Support Our Work

Neighbors for Good Governance is a volunteer-driven community group, and your donation helps us build an informed electorate, increase voter turnout, and support future leaders.

Every dollar helps!

$10 · $25 · $50 · $100

Donate via PayPal

❤️

Scan to donate via PayPal

Your contribution supports citizen education, community engagement and advocacy. We are a nonprofit 501C(4) and contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. Donor information is not publicly shared.

Contact Us

We'd love to hear from you.

Have a question, want to get involved, or know someone who should be leading in Montrose County? Reach out — we're neighbors too.