Pitkin County commissioners revise working agreement, emphasize accountability and brevity

Pitkin County commissioners spent a large portion of their April 1 work session revising a draft “working agreement” that lays out how commissioners will interact, make decisions, and hold one another accountable. The discussion, led by Deputy County Manager Kara Silvernago, centered on tightening language, trimming redundancy, and adopting a practicable accountability process the board can use during meetings and between members.

The board reviewed edits to a document they began at a February retreat, with Silvernago describing the draft as a set of commitments commissioners are willing to make to one another. Commissioner Kelly and others proposed edits to simplify wording, reduce repetitive phrases about seeking clarification, and remove language that sounded punitive. Commissioners debated phrasing for items such as checking in with members who have not spoken, “seeking clarification if necessary,” and how to balance giving novel ideas time to breathe against avoiding groupthink.

Why it matters: the working agreement is intended to be a short, practical reference the board can use during difficult or contentious discussions. Board members said a concise, clearly worded document would be more useful in the moment than a long manifesto, and several suggested laminated one‑page copies for the dais so members can quickly reference it.

Most of the session was spent refining specific bullets on communication, preparedness and participation, constructive decision‑making, and addressing conflict. Commissioners agreed to remove or tighten language perceived as redundant (for example, removing an explicit admonition to avoid “taking offense” before seeking clarification). They added language committing to “considering bold and unique ideas” and to “maintain respectful and constructive discussions even in disagreement,” while flagging “minimizing snarkiness” only as part of that respectful‑discussion standard.

On accountability — the most debated section — commissioners discussed what “holding each other accountable” should practically mean. Staff and several commissioners recommended a laddered approach: first, a one‑on‑one conversation between members when a concern arises; if that does not resolve the issue, referral to the board chair or county manager to facilitate a conversation. Several commissioners resisted language that implied formal punitive measures, noting that peer accountability is different from staff performance processes.

The board also debated who should do any final wordsmithing to produce a polished public document. Some members urged keeping the language as-is to reflect the board’s authentic voice; others asked staff to route the draft to a single reviewer for final editing. A few commissioners expressed concern about public perception and suggested limited editing by communications staff or a board‑designated reviewer.

Direction and next steps: staff was asked to produce a trimmed, one‑page final version incorporating the board’s agreed edits and the accountability process described above. Commissioners suggested printing and laminating a few copies to keep at the board table. No formal vote was taken; the session was a working session focused on drafting and direction rather than formal adoption.

Ending: Commissioners closed the discussion after agreeing on the main substantive edits and a pragmatic accountability approach, and asked staff to return with the cleaned, one‑page version for final consideration and distribution.