Pueblo commissioners approve additional $20,000 to fund sheriff's lawsuit against Colorado
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 jreutterma@gannett.com. 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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
See who is running for redistricted seats in MS Legislature this year
Thirty candidates have submitted documents with the Mississippi Secretary of State's Office to run in 14 court-ordered special legislative elections later this year. Of the 14 races, 10 appear to be contested, according to an MSOS document listing the candidates. A federal three-judge panel last year ordered the Legislature to redraw its House and Senate districts in three areas because some districts were found to dilute Black voting power. After the Legislature submitted a new map, the NAACP, which filed the lawsuit in 2022 that lead to the court order, challenged it. The panel later accepted an amended version of the map impacting the Desoto County area. Candidates had until Monday at 5 p.m. to complete and file paperwork to run. The state Democratic and Republican Parties have until Friday at the same time to verify those candidates with MSOS. Four of the 10 contested races will be decided via a primary that will take place on Aug. 5 because the candidates are all of the same party, and the rest will be decided after the Nov. 4 special election day. Here is a list of those running in the 14 legislative districts This district now encompasses Tate and Desoto counties. Jon Steverson- Republican Michael McLendon-Republican incumbent Chris Hannah-Democrat This district is now in Tunica and Desoto counties. SD 2's incumbent, Sen. David Parker, R-Olive Branch, announced last week he will not be running in the special election. Kelly Lisa Andress-Democrat Theresa Gillespie Isom-Democrat Robert J. Walker-Democrat This district is now in Tunica and Walls counties. Kendall Prewitt- Republican Reginald Jackson- Incumbent Democrat Abe Hudson, Jr.-Democrat This district is now in Marshall and Desoto counties. Kevin Blackwell-Incumbent Republican Dianne Dodson Black- Democrat The district is now in Convington, Jasper and Jones counties. Juan Barnett- Incumbent Democrat The district is now in Convington, Lamar, Marion and Walthall counties. Joey Fillingane- Incumbent Republican The district is now in Forrest, Greene, Jones and Wayne counties Robin Robinson- Republican RJ Robinson- Republican Don Hartness- Republican This district is now in Forrest, Lamar and Perry counties. Chris Johnson- Incumbent Republican Patrick Lott- Republican Shakita T. Taylor- Democrat The district is now in Forrest and Lamar counties Anna Rush- Republican Johnny L. DuPree- Democratic The district is now in Chickasaw, Lee, Monroe and Pontotoc counties. Brady Davis- Democrat Ricky Thompson- Incumbent Democrat The district is now in Chickasaw, Clay and Monroe counties. Jon Lancaster- Incumbent Republican Justin Crosby- Democrat This district is now in Clay, Lowndes, Monroe and Oktibbeha counties. Karl Gibbs- Incumbent Democrat This district is now in Lowndes and Monroe counties. Dana McLean- Incumbent Republican The district is in Lowndes County. Kabir Karriem- Incumbent Democrat Pierre Beard- Democrat To find more information about voting data regarding the redrawn House and Senate districts, people can visit the Mississippi Automated Resource Information System website. Grant McLaughlin covers the Legislature and state government for the Clarion Ledger. He can be reached at gmclaughlin@ or 972-571-2335. This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Who is running for redistricted seats in Mississippi Legislature


New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Court Will Consider Trump's Use of Troops as Immigration Protests Spread
California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump vs. Musk shows us depths of the GOP's moral rot | Opinion