Council starts process for potential removal of two planning commissioners

Oct. 2 Update: Following the Sept. 24 publication of this article, three members of the
Gunnison Planning and Zoning Commission resigned, including Julie Robinson, Travis
Scheefer and Erik Iverson.
Robinson and Scheefer were both subjects of the notice and hearing processes the city
council initiated at its Sept. 22 meeting.
In their resignation letters, the three former commission members expressed
dissatisfaction with the relationship between the city council and the commission.
“It is no longer an honor to serve on a commission that is ineffective and does not
support the people of Gunnison,” said Robinson in her letter. “If transparency is a goal,
then the planning and zoning commission should have been engaged in the process of
drafting new Bylaws. It is my opinion that there is clearly a lack of honorable leadership
that I will NOT be at the pleasure of serving!”
“I have served on this Commission since 2019 because I believe in what it is designed
to be,” Scheefer said in his letter. “I cannot continue in a role that, in my view, is no
longer a functional planning commission as the City Charter intends.”
“In conclusion I am resigning because of the recent and intentional alienation, lack of
transparency, reduction in communication, and open discussion with city council and
staff,” said Iverson in his resignation letter.
Scheefer and Robinson also reiterated their objections to the member charter that the
commission approved at its Aug. 26 meeting and that they refused to sign.
Both expressed the view that the process surrounding the approval of the charter, which
was first approved by city council and then presented to the commission to approve and
sign, represented an improper overreach of the council’s authority and an undermining
of the council independence and authority.
“I willfully refuse to sign and acknowledge a document that was already adopted and is
in my opinion unlawful in its nature to manipulate and change the existing Charter
without a vote by the people,” said Robinson.
Following these resignations, the commission is left with three members, one less than
the four member quorum required for the commission to hold meetings.
For more on the resignations, the city’s response and the next steps for the
commission, see the Oct. 8 issue of the Gunnison Country Times.

At its Sept. 22 meeting, the Gunnison City Council voted to initiate a formal notice and
hearing process for the potential removal of two members of the city’s Planning and
Zoning Commission for alleged noncompliance.
At the Aug. 26 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the commission voted
4-2 to adopt a Commission and Committee Member Charter presented to it by City
Council, which approved this charter for all city commissions earlier in August.
Following the meeting, Julie Robinson and Travis Scheefer, the two members of the
commission who voted against adopting the member charter, refused to sign, an action
which brought the issue to the city council to consider how to address this alleged
noncompliance.
The commission also failed to adopt a new set of board bylaws at the Aug. 26 meeting
by a 3-3 tied vote. These bylaws were approved by the city council at its Aug. 11
meeting.
At the Aug. 26 council meeting, Mayor Diego Plata introduced the item to the council,
explaining that the council would be considering the circumstances of the situation and
deciding what action to take, including initiating the notice and hearing process to
potentially remove the commission members, requesting additional information or some
other action.
Councilor Loren Ahonen said that he had listened to the August commission meeting

and that the issue was part of a “long conversation that we’ve been having for quite
some time.”
He said that there appeared to be “a fair bit of confusion from a variety of folks on the
commission about a variety of topics,” which included uncertainty from some members
about what they were voting on.
“It was a bit of convoluted conversation from my view of watching it and I think it relates
to sort of a lack of understanding of what the goal and the intent of this process is,
which has been relayed many times of transparency, consistency and all the pieces of
puzzle,” he said. “But there appeared to be, in my … visualizing, gaps in knowledge for
some folks as to the stepwise procedure that was at hand and what was happening
there.”
Mayor Pro Tem Marisela Ballesteros said that agreed with Ahonen, adding, “There
needs to be just some room to where we can understand where the confusion is coming
from, where the misunderstanding is coming from so that way alignment can happened
‘cause, at the end of the day, I think the intent is teamwork so that way, in the public’s
view, they’re not getting confused as to different messages being sent. So just
teamwork and alignment and trying to find a way where people are empowered in this

commission but also aligning with our charter. I think there needs to be a little bit more
space to hear these misunderstandings.”
Councilor Audrey Zahradka said that it was “a little bit our responsibility to hear where
the confusion is coming from and take that into account as well.”
Ahonen said that he perceived two levels of confusion at the commission meeting,
including confusion or differing interpretations or what adopting bylaws means and
confusion about what the commission was voting on.
He said that the meaning of adopting bylaws has also been discussed at city council
and that further clarification of the goals of bylaws and the member charter may need to
occur in the future.
Ahonen said that some members of the planning commission seemed to be confused
about what they were voting on and there might not have been a full understanding of
the process of adopting the member charter and bylaws versus choosing to not sign or
participate in the approved charter or bylaws.
“Having moved to accept something, you would need to choose to participate in it and
that is the next logical step,” he said. “It is perfectly acceptable if members of the
commission don’t feel that that represents their needs moving forward or their interests,
that is just fine. But understanding that a willful choice to not participate by signing a
document you have approved is a willful choice to then not move forward.
“I think there’s an education process that maybe felt, for some members of the
commission, like they didn’t understand procedurally what the member charter and the
bylaws were, which is incumbent upon individuals to do their homework - some of the
individuals on the commission seem to understand that, some don’t – and then,
subsequently, to decide whether or not they would like to participate based on those.”
He said that there also appear to be misunderstandings of what “adopting procedure”
means, which Ahonen said concerns how to run meetings but does not include
commissions setting their own jurisdictions for what they hold authority over.
He added that he has heard commission members ask where in the town’s home rule
charter the City Council is given the authority to make a member charter and bylaws.
Ahonen said that this power is included in the prefatory synopsis of the charter, which
says “The power to create and control necessary Boards and Commissions is vested in
the Council.”
Plata said that legal analysis was conducted on the proposed bylaws and member

charter, including by outside legal experts. This analysis, he said, concluded that
Section 3.17 of the home rule charter, which concerns boards and commissions and

states that each board and commission “shall adopt its own rules of procedure for the
conduct of its business,” does not give the planning commission “the role of instituting
legislation.”
Plata asked what rules are currently in place regarding the commission regarding the
bylaws that were not adopted, noting that he had been asked this question by Scheefer.
City Attorney Kathleen Fogo said that the prior adopted rules for all boards and
commissions were rescinded by council in Resolution 10, Series 2026, which also
included the member charter and new bylaws for city boards and commissions.
She said that this resolution, a code of conduct and rules of procedure adopted by the
city council in 2025 and the member charter the planning commission adopted in
August were the rules in effect for the commission at this point.
City Manager Amanda Wilson said that rescinding of previous bylaws was not an
“assertion or interpretation” and was specifically stated in Resolution 10.
Ballesteros asked whether the council would need to initiate formal notice and hearing
to hear from the members or whether it could request additional information.
Fogo said that process would be to send a letter and set a hearing date to give the two
commission members who have not signed the charter an opportunity to speak with the
city council.
Ballesteros said she would “like to hear from them, mainly because we are in a role of
adopting and providing different resolutions and I think communication is a huge aspect
of that, so any way that we can improve I would like to improve ‘cause, again I’ll say, our
intent was not to create any diversion, again this is to have teamwork and alignment
together and to empower those who are in this commission. … I want to see where we
can be better with that.”
Fogo said that the council initiating a process for removal for cause would be the
opportunity for the two commissioners to present their positions to the council. “It is not
a process where it’s just a discussion back and forth or education or communication or
training or things of that nature,” she said.
Zahradka asked why the action focused on the two commission members who refused
to sign the charter and not on the three members who voted against the bylaws, which
included Robinson and Scheefer along with Erik Iverson.
Ahonen explained that the issue was commission members being unwilling to sign the
member charter adopted by the commission was the issue, not them dissenting by
voting against adopting it.

Councilor Matt Schwartz said that this situation is similar to what occurs when the
council has a split vote, with the members who voted no still being bound by the
decision of the majority.
Wilson said that the focus of this discussion was on the member charter but that there
would be conversation with the commission on the bylaws which it failed to adopt.
“That subject and that discussion is not over,” she said. “They didn’t pass the bylaws
and we need to reengage them in a conversation about why and how could we get to a
point of adopting those or what changes etc. can we work through to get to a resolution
on that.”
Plata then requested action from council, with Schwartz moving to initiate the formal
notice and hearing process, which Ballesteros seconded and which was unanimously
approved.