Commissioner Harvey urges three-commissioner meetings with county administrator; board agrees to interim practice

Commissioner Harvey moved on April 21 to rescind and then amend a recently adopted resolution clarifying San Juan County's form of government, arguing that one-on-one or ad hoc meetings between a single commissioner and the county administrator or department heads have undermined trust and constrained department operations. "When we meet with our county administrator... it's going to be you, Madame Chair, myself, Commissioner Stubs," Harvey said, requesting that future administrative and departmental meetings be conducted by the three commissioners together.

The chair and other commissioners raised practical concerns about efficiency and day-to-day operations if every routine matter required all three commissioners to attend. County Attorney advised the board that the three-commissioner form of government is imposed by statute and cannot be repealed by a local resolution without following the formal processes required to change the county's form of government. "By statute, counties are required to follow a certain form of government," the county attorney said, adding that a repeal would revert authority to statute and that a new resolution and public notice would be required to effect structural changes.

The exchange included disagreement about whether department heads should be prevented from communicating directly with a commissioner on routine, day-to-day matters. Commissioners outlined a distinction: routine operational work could continue through invited commissioner contacts, while personnel actions or matters that exceed day-to-day authority should be brought to the full commission. Commissioner Stubs and others said they were willing to accept a process that preserves an operational channel for urgent issues while routing policy or disciplinary matters to the full board.

Rather than taking immediate formal action, the commission reached an informal operational agreement: moving forward, meetings with the county administrator and meetings with department heads or elected officials should include invitations to all three commissioners. The board asked the county attorney to provide a written legal opinion and to draft a new resolution reflecting the two requested clarifications so the commission can consider formal adoption at a future meeting. The county attorney also suggested the parties produce any recording that is claimed to exist so the public record can resolve competing accounts.

Next steps: the county attorney will provide a written opinion and a draft resolution for the commission's consideration; commissioners mentioned scheduling a special session or work session to finalize operational rules before the next regular meeting.