![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781206889_172_Screenshot-2026-06-09-224848-1024x470.png\")
<\/p>\nThis letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.\n<\/p>\n
Hi Council, Town Attorney, and Acting Town Manager.\n<\/p>\n
As a resident of Erie, I have to say there is a complete lack of transparency when the Town Council goes into executive session.
As Mayor Pro Tem Branden Bell said in last night\u2019s meeting, the same generic statement is made every time to go into session about a property negotiation. Apparently, the law requires \u201cthe particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose\u201d of the executive session. I do not believe you are meeting this requirement by using a generic statement.\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Erie Town Council, June 9th, 2026<\/p>\n
From my research \u2013 quoted info from AI.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cFor example, these notices become progressively more informative:\n<\/p>\n
Property acquisition.
\nProperty acquisition related to airport operations.
\nProperty acquisition in the Airport Park area.
\nProperty acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.<\/p>\n
The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
You are not doing this. AI told me to ask you this \u2013\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Open Meetings Law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Can the Town explain why identifying the general location or project associated with the property transaction would compromise the negotiation?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
There is no way I would have been able to tell from the agenda whether you were talking about the Draco purchase or the Airport purchase.\u00a0 The Mayor did mention the Airport property, but this was verbal, not in the written agenda.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying \u201cthe airport\u201d would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.\u201d\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
And the courts support as much detail as possible.\u00a0 \u201cWhat is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.\n<\/p>\n
In the well-known Basalt case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the town violated the Open Meetings Law because it provided only the broad statutory categories and failed to give meaningful detail about the subject being discussed.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/May_5_2026_Erie_Counsel-1024x474.png\")
<\/p>\n
Erie Town Council, May 5, 2026<\/p>\n
It was good to see Acting Town Manager Muth say she would work with the Town attorney on a procedure to be transparent. Hoping that means for the public.\u00a0 Just because the Council member knows what the subject is, that is not sufficient; the residents should also know.\n<\/p>\n
So I am hoping the Town Attorney and Acting Town Manager can implement better procedures to provide transparency in the agenda presented to the residents.\n<\/p>\n
Sincerely, DeWayne Drummond\n<\/p>\n
My chat with AI follows if you are interested.\n<\/p>\n
Please explain to me the requirement for notification of going into executive session at a town council meeting. Our town always puts out the following statement \u201cEXECUTIVE SESSION to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations, and\/or instruct negotiators, pursuant to C.R.S. \u00a7 24-6-402(4)(e); and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property, pursuant to C.R.S. \u00a7 24-6-402(4)(a); for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.\u201d Now my question is why can it not tell what Property they are considering? like \u201cand to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property at the Airport park, pursuant to C.R.S. \u00a7 24-6-402(4)(a); \u201d IE specify where the property rather just a generic statement. Citizens do not trust the council with the generic statement\n<\/p>\n
Your concern is actually at the heart of Colorado\u2019s Open Meetings Law.\n<\/p>\n
The key language in Colorado law is that before going into executive session, the council must identify:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cthe particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
That phrase creates a balancing test:\n<\/p>\n
The public is entitled to know what is being discussed.
\nThe government is allowed to withhold details that would defeat the purpose of the executive session.<\/p>\n
For property transactions\n<\/p>\n
The property exception under C.R.S. \u00a7 24-6-402(4)(a) allows executive sessions for:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
The usual justification is that publicly identifying the property before negotiations are complete could:\n<\/p>\n
Drive up the price.
\nAlert competing buyers.
\nWeaken the town\u2019s negotiating position.
\nCause speculation in surrounding properties.<\/p>\n
So if the town is negotiating to buy a specific parcel, it may argue that naming it publicly would compromise the negotiation. That is exactly what the statute contemplates.\n<\/p>\n
But can they be too vague?\n<\/p>\n
Yes.\n<\/p>\n
The law does not say a council can simply recite the statute and stop there.\n<\/p>\n
The statute requires identification of the \u201cparticular matter\u201d in as much detail as possible. Merely saying:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cpurchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real property\u201d\n<\/p>\n
without any additional description may be vulnerable to challenge if more detail could have been provided without harming negotiations.\n<\/p>\n
For example, these provide progressively more information:\n<\/p>\n
Very vague\n<\/p>\n
Better\n<\/p>\n
\u201cPossible acquisition of property for future park purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even better\n<\/p>\n
\u201cPossible acquisition of property in the Airport Park area.\u201d<\/p>\n
Most specific\n<\/p>\n
\u201cPossible acquisition of Parcel X adjacent to Airport Park.\u201d<\/p>\n
The question becomes: would revealing the location \u201cAirport Park\u201d actually compromise the negotiation?\n<\/p>\n
Your Airport Park example\n<\/p>\n
If the council agenda said:\n<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property interests in the Airport Park area\u2026\u201d\n<\/p>\n
I think many citizens would view that as a reasonable balance between transparency and confidentiality.\n<\/p>\n
The town might respond that even identifying \u201cAirport Park\u201d would reveal the parcel under discussion because there may be only one tract available there.\n<\/p>\n
Whether that argument is convincing depends on the facts.\n<\/p>\n
What Colorado courts generally look for\n<\/p>\n
If challenged, a court would likely ask:\n<\/p>\n
Did the council cite the correct statutory authority?
\nDid the council identify the subject matter?
\nDid it provide as much detail as reasonably possible?
\nWould additional detail have harmed the negotiation?<\/p>\n
If the answer to the last question is \u201cno,\u201d then the notice may have been unnecessarily vague.\n<\/p>\n
A practical citizen question\n<\/p>\n
A fair question to ask during public comment or by email is:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Open Meetings Law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Can the Town explain why identifying the general location or project associated with the property transaction would compromise the negotiation?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
That puts the discussion squarely on the statutory standard rather than on whether citizens \u201ctrust\u201d the council.\n<\/p>\n
If you tell me which Colorado town this is (for example, Erie, Thornton, etc.) and whether the executive session language comes from the agenda or from the motion made at the meeting, I can help evaluate whether their notice is merely conservative or arguably falls short of Colorado\u2019s transparency requirements.\n<\/p>\n
Town of Erie, in the agenda for a town council meeting\n<\/p>\n
For Erie specifically, I think you have a stronger argument than you might realize.\n<\/p>\n
I found the exact agenda language from a January 2026 Erie Town Council special meeting, and it is essentially identical to what you quoted:\n<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations\u2026 and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property\u2026 for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
The issue is that Colorado law requires more than merely citing the statutory category. The council must identify:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cthe particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose\u201d of the executive session.\n<\/p>\n
What is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.\n<\/p>\n
In the well-known Basalt case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the town violated the Open Meetings Law because it provided only the broad statutory categories and failed to give meaningful detail about the subject being discussed.\n<\/p>\n
So the real question is not:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cCan Erie legally withhold the exact parcel number?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
The real question is:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cHas Erie provided as much information as possible without harming negotiations?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Those are very different questions.\n<\/p>\n
Could Erie identify \u201cAirport Park\u201d?\n<\/p>\n
Possibly yes.\n<\/p>\n
For example, these notices become progressively more informative:\n<\/p>\n
Property acquisition.
\nProperty acquisition related to airport operations.
\nProperty acquisition in the Airport Park area.
\nProperty acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.<\/p>\n
The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.\n<\/p>\n
If saying \u201cAirport Park area\u201d would not reveal the specific seller or bargaining position, then citizens could reasonably argue that the public deserves that level of information.\n<\/p>\n
Why councils like generic wording\n<\/p>\n
From the council\u2019s perspective, the safest legal approach is often:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re discussing property and negotiations, and disclosing more would compromise the executive session.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
That avoids any risk of accidentally revealing confidential negotiations.\n<\/p>\n
But it also creates exactly the trust problem you describe. Citizens hear:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re talking about some property somewhere.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
and have no way to know whether it concerns:\n<\/p>\n
Airport expansion,
\nopen space,
\nwater rights,
\ndowntown redevelopment,
\nmineral rights,
\nmunicipal facilities,
\nor something else entirely.<\/p>\n
A question I would ask Erie\n<\/p>\n
Rather than accusing them of violating the law, I would ask:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cColorado law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Why is the Town unable to identify even the general project area, such as Airport Park, municipal airport property, water rights, or open space acquisitions?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
That is a very difficult question for a council to dismiss because it goes directly to the statutory standard.\n<\/p>\n
My personal reading of the agenda language Erie has been using is that it is about as generic as a notice can be while still citing the correct statute. Whether it satisfies the \u201cas much detail as possible\u201d requirement would depend on the specific property matter being discussed. The Basalt court decision suggests that simply repeating statutory categories is not automatically enough.\n<\/p>\n
My overall impression\n<\/p>\n
After reading the transcript, I do not think the dispute was really about whether executive sessions are legal.\n<\/p>\n
I think the dispute was about trust and transparency.\n<\/p>\n
The mayor, staff, and Bell appear to be saying:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe council already knew the topic. This is a normal property-negotiation executive session.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Hoback appears to be saying:\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe public doesn\u2019t know enough, and the council shouldn\u2019t automatically approve executive sessions without better explanation.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Those are both reasonable positions.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding your original question\n<\/p>\n
If I were advising Erie, I would suggest that the agenda could probably be more informative while still protecting negotiations.\n<\/p>\n
For example:\n<\/p>\n
Executive session to discuss potential airport-related property negotiations pursuant to C.R.S. \u00a7 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e).\n<\/p>\n
or\n<\/p>\n
Executive session regarding potential acquisition or disposition of property interests associated with airport operations.\n<\/p>\n
Those descriptions tell citizens substantially more than the current boilerplate language, yet they still do not identify the parcel, seller, price, or negotiating strategy.\n<\/p>\n
From a citizen\u2019s perspective, that kind of disclosure would likely improve confidence without significantly impairing negotiations.\n<\/p>\n
What I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying \u201cthe airport\u201d would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":216735,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[4877,6836,6837,1676,6833,6838,1681,136,138,137,1677,8423,6835,976],"class_list":["post-216734","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-erie","tag-arts","tag-boulder","tag-business-directory","tag-colorado","tag-denver","tag-east-county","tag-entertainment","tag-erie","tag-erie-headlines","tag-erie-news","tag-front-range","tag-letter","tag-north-metro","tag-restaurant"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216734\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/216735"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}