City balks at county records plan

City balks at county records plan

Sept. 28, 2000

By Jim Mimiaga
Journal Staff Writer

The Montezuma County Commission’s approval of the sheriff’s department proposal to start its own records division was put on hold Monday after being sharply contested by city and police officials — including the commissioners’ own attorney.

Cortez City Manager Hal Shepherd, city-council members and Cortez Police Chief Roy Lane cried foul once they learned of the commissioners’ decision to allow the sheriff’s office to proceed with the plan, arguing it violated an intergovernmental agreement between the two departments that requires a year’s notice be given before the contract is terminated.

"We expect the year’s notice per our agreement if this (separation) is what you want to do," Keck said, defending the record-sharing partnership between the two departments as a "natural fit that saves taxpayer money."

Confusion over the contract’s language led County Commissioner Gene Story to tell the sheriff’s department to hold off on its independent-records plan, which was given a unanimous approval by the commissioners last week.

"We will comply with the (intergovernmental) agreement," said Story. "For now, we need to put (the records plan) on hold until we can resolve this with the city; there is too much at stake here. The city will obviously have a significant impact."

The intent and specifics of legal wording outlining the terms of the contract expiration were argued by the commissioners, their attorney Bob Slough and Sheriff Joey Chavez. Agreed to on Nov.12, 1996, the contract calls for a two-year term between the county and city.

It then states: "Unless written notice is given the other party one year prior to the expiration of this intergovernmental agreement, it shall be automatically renewed for one year."

City officials believe that because no written notice has ever been given by either party to specifically terminate it, the contract has been automatically renewed each year and is therefore still in effect.

"If it proceeds, then we need the notice because of the financial impacts it would cause our department. That was the reason the year’s notice," Shepherd said.

Slough agreed, saying it was his impression all along that the one-year notice would be given to the city before the sheriff’s office began implementing its own records division. He was dismayed at the obvious agreement between the commission and Chavez that the process for starting separate records would begin sooner.

"This is ridiculous. There was never a question that the city would not be given the year’s notice," Slough said. "It is in there (the contract), there was never any doubt about it. I could not represent the commission on this matter because it would be a conflict."

But Chavez said he interpreted the "renewed-for-one-year" language as meaning simply that, in other words, without any notice given, the intergovernmental agreement expired in November 1999, three years after it was signed.

"It was my understanding that we were not working with a contract," Chavez said. "We did our homework on this thing and when we had commission approval we went ahead. We said that if we were going to do this it had to be quickly," to have it up and running when the sheriff’s department moved into the new jail.

But Slough said he thought it was understood that the process would not begin until the new building was completed, expected next summer.

While advocating keeping the agreement, Shepherd said if it were to be terminated, time was needed in order to adjust the city’s budget. Lane said if the deal went through, two city records employees would lose their jobs without much notice.

"That would not be fair to them," he said.

It was suggested the two employees be switched to the sheriff’s department and continue in their records-keeping jobs.