PUEBLO, Colo. — The Pueblo County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously July 24 to terminate a professional services agreement with the 76 Group, with the termination to take effect Aug. 5, 2025.

The resolution, placed on the regular agenda by the county attorney, relies on contract language that allows termination “with or without cause” with 10 days’ notice; the resolution sets an effective date that accommodates mailing and the 10-day period. Commissioners approved the motion to adopt the resolution after public comments and internal discussion about the scope of the consultant’s work.

Why it matters: the county had hired the 76 Group as a federal lobbying/consulting firm. Commissioners and public speakers said conduct by an employee of the 76 Group — identified in meeting remarks as “Mr. Small” — involved outreach to county clerks about voting systems that, they said, was outside the firm’s contracted duties and raised ethics and disclosure concerns. Public commenters urged the county to vacate or revoke the contract.

Public comments that preceded the vote highlighted those concerns. Eric Javanau, a resident of the City of Pueblo, told the board the central issues were “disclosure” and “no conflicts of interest,” and urged terminating the contract. Brian Wilson, a Pueblo West resident, said he had concerns about the consultant’s reputation and asked the commissioners to “consider has this consulting group…actually accomplished any of its purposes that we, the citizens of Pueblo County, hired them for?” Roxy Pianelli, a private citizen, said the firm’s “reputation is sketchy at best.”

Commissioner Paula McPheeeters said she had researched the matter since learning of it earlier in the week and concluded the contacts by the 76 Group’s employee were “outside of what they were hired to do for our county.” She said, “I will be a vote yes to end this contract based on my research and based on what I know they were hired to do.”

The county attorney told commissioners the contract permits termination on 10 days’ notice and that the resolution sets Aug. 5 as the date the termination will be effective to allow for mailing and constructive notice.

The board voted 3–0 to approve the resolution. The motion to adopt was made and seconded during the meeting; the clerk recorded three ayes and the motion carried unanimously.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting record shows both public comment and commissioner statements questioning the firm’s conduct and scope of work; the formal decision recorded was the board’s vote to adopt the termination resolution. No additional disciplinary or financial remedies were announced on the record.

Next steps and limits: commissioners discussed verifying facts and said they did not intend to make hasty decisions without research. The resolution terminates the county’s contract with the firm but does not, on the public record at this meeting, impose further sanctions or state the disposition of any invoices already submitted by the firm.

Details from the meeting: the county attorney introduced the item and advised the board that termination can be with or without cause with 10 days’ notice; the resolution sets the effective termination date as Aug. 5, 2025. Public comment and commissioner discussion focused on outreach by the 76 Group employee to clerks and concerns about disclosure and conflicts; meeting speakers said the Pueblo County clerk was not contacted by that individual.

The board’s action applies only to the county’s contract with the 76 Group and does not, based on the meeting record, make findings about criminality or charge any individual with wrongdoing.