Pueblo commissioners approve additional $20,000 to fund sheriff's lawsuit against Colorado

Yahoo

26-02-2025

Pueblo County Commissioners voted 2-1 on Feb. 25 to approve an additional $20,000 to continue funding a lawsuit by Pueblo County Sheriff David Lucero.
The county has previously spent $25,000 to fund the suit filed by Lucero against the state, the union that represents PCSO deputies, and others, in which the sheriff argues he cannot lawfully engage in collective bargaining, as it may affect his ability to keep the peace.
Commissioners Zach Swearingen and Paula McPheeters, both Republicans, voted to continue funding the lawsuit, while Miles Lucero, the lone Democrat, opposed additional funding.
"I think the intent of the law was 100% to qualify sheriff's deputies as county employees, and I think we are fighting a losing battle," Lucero stated in a brief debate before the vote. "If the sheriff wants to seek clarity in the law, it is not our obligation as a board to make that happen and fund that pursuit of clarification in the law."
McPheeters disagreed and emphatically supported continued funding for the sheriff's legal bills, agreeing with the sheriff that the 2022 Collective Bargaining by County Employees Act (COBCA) conflicts with a sheriff's constitutional role.
"We are not the judge, we don't get to decide if it's valid or not. How the union is operating is not our decision, but there is a conflict in the law, and we need an answer so we can move forward. COBCA is a poorly written bill, or we wouldn't be having this issue," she said.
Swearingen made similar comments, arguing his belief that there is "deserved clarification" on the bill and that there should be a "legislative fix" for the issue.
"The legislation was written in a non-clear way that provides a lot of room for interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here," he said.
Lucero's lawsuit came after the state's Division of Labor Standards and Statistics denied his appeal of an earlier finding he engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to participate in collective bargaining with the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) Local 837.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser recently filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the lawsuit, in which Lucero asked for a declaratory judgement by a Denver court in the matter.
When pressed by Miles Lucero about how much money his two Republican colleagues were willing to approve in the future to fund the lawsuit, neither commissioner would give a dollar amount.
Swearingen indicated he did not feel comfortable stating an exact number, although he said he had "assurances that everyone was trying to be fiscally responsible."
"I wouldn't want to pull the rug out from this if we're within (range of a resolution)," he said.
Swearingen continued that he did not believe the matter would cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" and that at some point, the commissioners would have to "look after the budget." He also acknowledged that the county has already spent a "good chunk of money" on the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, McPheeters stated that the board does not get to tell other elected officials how to run their departments and said she would "support the sheriff in his capacity as (she) would any other elected official in the county."
"Our job is not to be oversight of every elected official, our job is to support their budget," she said.
A collection of unions held a silent protest prior to the meeting to "raise awareness of the union's struggle and show solidarity," according to IBPO 837 President Brad Riccillo.
Jared Miner, vice president of the Southern Colorado Labor Council, stated it was important to show solidarity with the IBPO, and to attempt to stop the county from spending an additional $20,000 to fund the lawsuit.
"That is a lot of money that could be spent somewhere else," he said.
In public comments after the commissioners' vote, Miner stated he was concerned with the continued allocation of funds to what he described as "union-busting lawsuits."
"As sheriff, it is his duty to abide by the law and respect the rights of all workers. As a Democrat, the sheriff should be supporting his employees' right to collective bargaining," he said. "How much longer should we continue to spend taxpayer dollars on these fruitless lawsuits, which have already proven to be unsuccessful?"
Not everyone who spoke in public comment supported the union.
Lt. Bethany Solano, an investigator for the PCSO, stated she had witnessed members of the union "mock, harass, and bully" the sheriff. Meanwhile, she said Lucero has fought for his office, including securing an additional $900,000 in pay for workers.
Devin Flores, a private citizen and taxpayer, expressed that the matter of character on either side was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the matter at hand.
"What's relevant is the law and what the law says," Flores said. "Personally, as a taxpayer, I do not care how nice the sheriff is. I don't care. But I do have concerns about spending an additional $20,000 when money is tight.
"Why can't we just follow the lead of other counties? Why do we have to bring this to the same courts again and again? It's pointless," he said.
While disappointed by the board's decision, Riccillo said the union will "keep fighting."
"We are after a fair and equitable contract in the best interest of all sides. We'll keep moving, we have negotiations on Friday and we will continue to bargain in good faith," he said.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, progress has been made at the bargaining table, with 14 out of 31 articles raised by the union now resolved, including five in the past week, Riccillo said.
"This lawsuit is completely independent of the contract itself. We never intended to stop negotiating, and to their credit, neither did they. That's a very positive thing," he said.
However, Riccillo noted that contract negotiations began in February 2024, meaning a full year has passed. He also expressed concern that he does not know how much funding will continue to be provided to fund the lawsuit.
"They could continue to give and give money, but where does it stop? I fear that his intent was always to go to the Supreme Court," he said.
David Lucero expressed his gratitude to commissioners for continuing to support him, telling the Chieftain all he wants is judicial clarification on the matter.
"For me, it's all about getting people their pay, and (getting) an answer one way or another," he said. "I would think that the union would want an answer about the gray areas that are debatable at this point as much as I do."
Lucero stated he too believes COBCA is a poorly written law and wants clarification. However, he stated he can't rule out the possibility of appealing the matter if the eventual decision favors the union, as that would "depend on what the judge says and considers for material facts."
More local news: 'A simple question': Pueblo City Council approves ballot language for ditching Black Hills
Questions, comments, or story tips? Contact Justin at [e-mail]. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jayreutter1. Support local news, subscribe to The Pueblo Chieftain at subscribe.chieftain.com.
This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: Pueblo commissioners approve more money for sheriff's lawsuit