Commissioners press county manager on delegation, communication; schedule follow-ups

The Ouray County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday used the county manager's annual performance review to press for faster delegation, improved communication and clearer emergency coordination while setting a special follow-up work session and interim check-ins.

Commissioners said the county manager's duties have become too concentrated in one office for the county's current size and growth, and they asked for a concrete delegation plan, quarterly (with an initial three‑month) check‑in on progress and a special work session to continue the evaluation conversation. County Manager Connie [surname not specified] agreed to the check‑in cadence and to provide quarterly updates.

The concerns were anchored to an all‑employee survey the manager circulated to staff and to repeated feedback from department heads. The manager reported she received 14 responses to her internal supervisor evaluation form and said most responses were positive but several respondents registered disagreement on multiple items. Commissioners recited patterns they said have appeared across multiple annual reviews: delays implementing requested technology, limited delegation to the deputy county manager, uneven cross‑training, and a culture they described as causing staff hesitation to speak up.

Commissioner Michelle [surname not specified] framed the issue around continuity and succession, saying the county needs a deputy who can be trained to handle budget and financial duties and relieve the county manager’s workload. Commissioner Lynn [surname not specified] and Commissioner Jake [surname not specified] echoed concerns and organized their comments into four themes: modernization and organizational efficiency, culture and professionalism, leadership and delegation, and emergency management coordination.

In response, Connie said she felt “a little bit crushed” by the volume of criticism and outlined recent work she cited as progress: grant administration (including a FEMA grant), procurement policy updates, recruitment and training of new staff, and steps toward improved payroll and accounts payable processes. She also said some personnel and procurement tasks required time-consuming, formal processes and that recent staff turnover constrained how quickly she could delegate.

The board agreed to several next steps during the session: consolidate written feedback from commissioners; have the county manager complete the standard evaluation form after that consolidation; hold a special work session Tuesday, the eleventh, at 3:00 p.m. at the courthouse to continue the review; and schedule a three‑month check‑in (with commissioners discussing quarterly progress thereafter). Commissioners also asked the manager to provide a short written update on delegation of supervisory duties and on where the deputy county manager now supervises departments.

The commissioners stressed they were not seeking to micromanage day‑to‑day operations but to see measurable delegation and modernization milestones, including implementation of meeting software and expanded cross‑training. No formal disciplinary action or termination was proposed during the meeting; the discussion was framed as performance feedback and a request for accelerated implementation of previously discussed goals.

The board paused the session for a brief break after the review and agreed to reconvene for the cemetery agenda item and other business. The recorded discussion included multiple requests that the manager and staff supply printed copies of the commissioners' written recommendations and that the manager return with a consolidated action list at the special work session.