Procedural dispute flares at Pueblo County School District 70 meeting over recent board appointment

PUEBLO — Tensions over a recent appointment to a vacant seat on the Pueblo County School District 70 board surfaced during public comment as residents and some board members questioned whether the district followed its own procedures and state law.

Several speakers said the February meeting where the board voted on candidates did not conclude properly and that the board president appointed a new member without sufficient transparency. “It is inappropriate and premature for the board president to appoint someone before the February 10 meeting adjourned,” an attendee said, citing the need to follow the board’s adopted procedures and Robert’s Rules of Order.

Brad Miller, the board’s legal counsel, described actions at the meeting as “improper” in the context of the dispute over whether business from Feb. 10 had been carried forward. Board member Mark Emery recounted that work sessions and interviews were held on Jan. 27 and Feb. 3, that candidates were asked the same questions, and that the Feb. 10 vote proceeded through roughly 10 rounds that repeatedly produced tie results before a subsequent appointment was announced by the president.

Speakers raised a specific statutory reference, naming Colorado Revised Statute 22 31 1 29 and asking whether the appointment was recorded properly in meeting minutes and whether the district met the statute’s requirements for an appointment within 60 days. One commenter also asked the board to disclose whether an alliance between the Miller Farmer law firm and Riverstone Academy — and litigation filed by Miller Farmer — posed an ideological or financial risk to the district.

District staff spoke for the record to say the district would continue essential operations regardless of board actions: “We are going to move forward with the February payroll,” a staff member said, noting that some consent-agenda items must proceed so the district can operate.

The meeting produced one formal action on the floor: a motion to amend the agenda to remove item “10 o 2,” which the board approved; details of the roll-call vote were not specified in the meeting record presented during the discussion. An attempted motion to approve the agenda as amended failed for lack of a second.

Several public commenters urged the board to reconvene the vacancy discussion with fuller transparency and to provide answers about the interview rubric, voting process and any conflicts of interest before finalizing appointments. The board thanked speakers and said the matter would be revisited at a future meeting.