Pueblo Human Relations Commission seeks clarity after county withdraws from IGA; commissioners keep open door

Claire Shad, chair of the Pueblo Human Relations Commission (PHRC), described the commission’s work, membership and recent projects at the April 17 Board of County Commissioners work session and asked the county to clarify the PHRC’s role after the county withdrew from an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) earlier this year.

Shad said the commission was created by an intergovernmental agreement among the city, Pueblo County and PACOG to provide countywide advocacy and accountability on discrimination and human‑relations issues. “We are small but mighty, and we are very tenacious and ready to get to work here,” Shad said, and she reviewed PHRC activities from 2023 to 2025, including fundraising events, a human relations day proclamation, a discrimination matter the PHRC helped a family with in District 60 schools, and a former coordinator position the commission has since ended.

Shad asked the county to reconsider or at least clearly define the roles created by the IGA so the PHRC and county staff can coordinate outreach and education across the city and the county. She proposed monthly office hours around the county’s library branches, quarterly “boots on the ground” events, more regular meetings with city and county leadership and a community‑facing “what do you wish” town hall to gather firsthand testimony from marginalized residents.

Several commissioners praised the commission’s work but said they do not see grounds to restore the IGA. One commissioner said the county’s role in the IGA risked “becoming an ombudsman speaking on behalf of Pueblo County” and that no other nonprofit in the community has an IGA that lends the county’s voice; another commissioner said the IGA is not the right mechanism but offered case‑by‑case letters of support and budget requests through the county’s grant routing process. Commissioner Miles Lucero apologized for earlier critical remarks and said he supports the commission’s work even though he supported exiting the IGA; he urged continued communication.

Shad requested more time to discuss the IGA language and asked the board to revisit the governance language before making a final decision. Commissioners said the IGA withdrawal is in effect for now but committed to keeping an open door, evaluating discrete requests for support and meeting to clarify roles if the PHRC wishes to negotiate changes to the IGA or governance language.

Ending: The board did not take a vote to restore the IGA; commissioners said they will continue conversations with the PHRC and accept funding or letters on a case‑by‑case basis rather than re‑establishing the IGA at this time.