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.
Monitoring Local Government
We attend and review public meetings so our neighbors don't have to go it alone.
Who We Monitor
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.
Meeting Notes
Summaries from public meetings attended by Neighbors for Good Governance volunteers.
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.
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.
What is the Board's intention regarding James Pavlich's former position? Will that position be posted and filled? If so, when? If not, why not?
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.
The Board was entitled to discuss appropriate personnel and negotiation matters in executive session. But once that discussion concluded, the community was left without answers about an acting superintendent who is carrying tremendous responsibility for the district.
This is about more than titles and organizational charts. It is about the well-being of district employees, continuity of leadership, responsible governance, and ultimately the ability of district administrators to focus on students.
Dr. Kalb deserves clarity and appropriate support. District employees deserve stability. Parents, students, and the community deserve to know the Board's plan.
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?
These are reasonable governance questions, and the community deserves clear answers.
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.
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. Sources: City of Montrose; NoticeRegistry (Ords. 2727–2729, Aug. 22, 2026); Montrose Daily Press, Aug. 21, 2026.
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.
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.
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" [while Michael Badagliacco, Adam Woodden, and Ed Ulibarri did not run under a formal party banner on the ballot, they received heavy backing and endorsement from the Montrose County Republicans].
Throughout the evening, constituents lined up to present public comments. Public comments and councilors statements were entered into the public record.
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 [purportedly urged to attend in a show of support for the proposed amendments agenda of 'their' 3 council members] to articulate a position on the proposed amendments to the City Charter during public comments.
Many left the session early.
What does this tell us about the ongoing process of proposing amendments at the City Council?
If constituents find it overwhelming to comment at a city council session, how will constituents, having been deprived of the opportunity to participate in a Charter Review Commission [as a result of a 2-3 City Council vote] be prepared to fully understand the proposed amendment wording on the ballot when voting in November?
Slow the Process down!
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 — FROM THE PUBLISHER: When David White goes deep, grab your waders:
"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 her 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.
Community Voices
Perspectives from neighbors across Montrose County.
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
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
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.
Supporting Future Leaders
We identify and encourage potential candidates who reflect our community's values — people motivated by service, not ideology, who are trusted, service-driven, fair, and transparent, deeply rooted in Montrose County and accountable to their neighbors, not to outside interests or party platforms.
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.
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.
✉️ Voting by Mail
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.
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.
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.
Neighbors for Good Governance