Tensions erupted at the Jan. 30 meeting of the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District (PAWSD) Board of Directors, where a dispute over the procedure for setting agendas turned into a heated argument between board members that included accusations that staff were subverting board authority and the district manager offering his resignation.
The dispute began early in the meeting, with PAWSD board member Glenn Walsh moving to defer consideration of amendments to the PAWSD board bylaws until after the May board elections, citing that the proposed changes would be “fundamental” to the power of the board and individual board members, and that they should be considered by the new board after the election.
He also raised concerns that the content of the proposed changes had been altered up to three hours before the meeting.
The proposed changes Walsh referenced added onto language in the bylaws stating, “Any one Board Member may request that an item be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting.”
The proposed addition states, “Requests shall be made at a meeting prior in advance of the requested date for consideration. The Board through a majority vote shall approve said request.”
District Engineer/Manager Justin Ramsey commented that the agenda item was for clarification of how to interpret the bylaws, not to change them.
He added that the board needed to discuss “some ground rules of how the board contacts our staff” and that the current situation was “unacceptable.”
PAWSD board member Gene Tautges commented that he agreed with the revisions to the bylaws and understands “the things that are sometimes put on staff.”
He stated that he would be willing to consider it at the present meeting.
PAWSD board member Alex Boehmer stated that the changes were “dropped on us a little quick” and that he would like more time to review them.
He added that he also would support delaying considering the changes.
The board then voted on Walsh’s motion, with Hudson, Walsh and Boehmer voting for it, and Tautges and Smith opposing.
The dispute continued approximately an hour and a half later when Ramsey, during his manager’s talking points, explained that, since the board did not discuss changes to the bylaws at the meeting, he would continue interpreting the bylaws as he had been interpreting them.
This meant that, according to Ramsey, any directions given to staff would have to be approved by the entire board and any changes to meeting agendas would also require board approval.
Walsh stated that the requirement for board direction to staff to be approved was well-understood, but that the ability of the board members to put items on the agenda for discussion was “fundamental to the board.”
He added that he did not feel that the board had superfluous items on its agendas and that discussions would only last as long as the board wished them to, limiting time spent on “foolish” items.
Ramsey commented that placing items on the agenda is “becoming a problem” due to staff being asked to place items on the agenda by some board members while others ask to remove these items, and board members asking staff to put items on the agenda that staff believe the board previously voted to not consider.
Hudson objected to Ramsey raising the issue again after the board voted to not consider the changes and Ramsey countered that he was clarifying how he would be interpreting the bylaws.
Hudson challenged Ramsey’s interpretation of the bylaws, and Ramsey explained that he interprets the current bylaws as saying that any board member could make a request to Smith, the board chairman, to place an item on the agenda, which he could then approve or deny.
Ramsey added that he wants board members to take their requests to Smith, not to PAWSD Programs Manager Renee Lewis, who writes the agendas.
Lewis stated that she does not set the agenda and that agendas are set through conversations between her, Business Manager Aaron Burns and Ramsey where they attempt to interpret the board’s direction.
She added that the proposed agenda is then brought to Smith.
Walsh stated that the bylaws do not give the PAWSD chairman agenda-setting capacity.
He then raised the issue of the board’s previous decision in May 2024 to not grant further affordable housing fee waivers until after the May 2025 board election, stating that he believed that this motion did not bar discussions of affordable housing before that date.
He added that he did not support a concept Hudson wished to present concerning affordable housing, but felt that a board member should be able to place the item on the board agenda and that the manager deciding to deny these requests would be “unsupportable.”
Lewis commented that staff time is required for each agenda item and that agenda items were previously funneled through the board chair, who would give staff direction on what they should do to prepare for each item.
Walsh raised concerns that requiring board approval of agenda items would allow a majority of board members to “gag” a minority of the board and prevent those board members from raising issues.
He stated that he previously served on such a board and that this practice is “undemocratic.”
Lewis commented that she agreed and had been in a similar situation.
Tautges noted the difference between discussion and action and questioned why a topic should be discussed if it cannot be acted on and would be “in the hands of a new board.”
“I understand somebody wanting to put something on the agenda, but if it’s a moot point, why?” Tautges asked.
“How do you know it’s moot until you discuss it?” Walsh countered. “Do you have a preconceived notion of how you’re going to vote?”
Walsh continued that board members are supposed to come into meetings with an “open mind” and stated that allowing items to be placed on board agendas for discussion, after which they would receive staff time if the board wanted them considered further, would be acceptable.
However, he reiterated his opposition to a majority of the board being able to limit what items are on the agenda.
Lewis commented that Ramsey believed that the board’s previous motion concerning affordable housing meant that the board would not discuss affordable housing topics, in addition to voting on them, until after the next election.
She added that the intention was not to prevent board members from being able to place items on the agenda.
Walsh commented that board members might have to wait months to put items on the agenda while staff could put them on the agenda “three hours” before a meeting.
Hudson then explained that he asked Lewis on Jan. 23 to put an item on the agenda concerning workforce housing.
On Jan. 27, Hudson stated that Ramsey responded, stating that changes to the agenda would need to be approved by the board and requesting that discussions concerning affordable housing be delayed until after the board election.
Hudson objected to this interpretation of the previous motion and he, Ramsey and Lewis then discussed the issue, according to Hudson, but neither Ramsey or Lewis would “believe me.”
Hudson then read the text of the May 2025 meeting concerning the affordable housing motion, where the board discussed not approving further waivers until after the 2025 board election, as well as receiving applications for waivers before the election.
Hudson reiterated his view that this motion did not bar discussion of affordable housing waivers before that point.
Ramsey attempted to clarify his interpretation of the issue and Hudson responded, “Don’t interrupt me, please.”
“[Expletive] you, Bill,” Ramsey replied. “This is my resignation. I’m not dealing with this, sorry. … You guys want me to run this district … talk to staff and have them running around all over the place whenever you guys want to …”
“To put one [expletive] sentence on an agenda,” Hudson said.
“That’s not it,” Ramsey said. “You guys are running staff ragged.”
“I asked her to put one sentence on the agenda,” Hudson said.
“This time, but there’s other things as well and I talked to Jim and … he had the same interpretation as I did,” Ramsey said.
Walsh apologized for running staff “ragged” in December 2024, but added that he did not make significant mistakes in the budgeting process that were not corrected.
“I’m sorry … if people are butthurt,” Walsh said. “I’m not going to impose massive 30 percent rate hikes on customers based on an absolutely, deeply, unprofessionally flawed rate study.”
Walsh continued that the rate study was not created in accordance with board direction.
“I would love not to bother the staff if maybe sometimes the staff would kind of adhere to decisions that we’ve made,” Walsh said.
He continued that, if Ramsey could not accept the compromise about placing items on the agenda without committing staff time to them, “then maybe he needs to go, and I wish him all the best and I thank him for his service.”
“I’d like to say, continuing on in this discussion, everybody in this room right now, we are here to represent our ratepayers, and we need to be as professional as possible in how we’re speaking to one another and how we’re discussing this issue,” Boehmer said, “because yelling, cursing is not beneficial to our ratepayers and it doesn’t make us look like a very professional organization. So, let’s tone this down a little bit and, if we’re going to continue this discussion, let’s continue it with a little more professionalism and understanding for each other.”
Hudson emphasized that the board tabled the agenda issue and Ramsey reintroduced it while Walsh commented that he did not believe he raised his voice and that he is willing to make compromises.
“Somebody came into the room spoiling for a fight,” he said. “They stood up, they uttered, I’m not really uttering really gutter profanities at people, never have in this boardroom, never will. Justin did.”
He added that he understood that he created work for staff at the end of the year, but that there were errors in the budget and the district’s rate study.
Walsh commented that the debate over agenda items was a “MacGuffin” and that it was an excuse to “blow up and quit.”
Hudson then continued his presentation of information relating to the decision to not place his item on the agenda, concluding by stating, “I started to feel like staff doesn’t want to work with me. … It’s very upsetting to me. I’m sorry that my voice is a little loud because it’s very upsetting to have a person that works for me, a person that is my employee, tell me, ‘No, Bill, you cannot put this on the agenda because I’m misinterpreting what happened in May.’”
Smith objected to the idea that Ramsey works for Hudson, stating that he works for the board.
Smith, Hudson and Tautges then debated the issue, with Hudson objecting to Ramsey’s conduct, Smith stating that he serves the board and Tautges questioning the value of discussing affordable housing waiver since a new board will be seated in May.
During the debate, Walsh commented that he appreciates Ramsey’s frustration due to his large workload and felt that the agenda debate was an excuse for him to quit.
He also withdrew his complaints about Ramsey using profanity and said that he would be willing to continue working with Ramsey if withdrew his resignation, but would also be willing to accept it and move on.
Tautges and Walsh then debated whether placing items on the agenda needs to be controlled, with Tautges raising concerns about the potential for excessive numbers of agenda items and Walsh commenting that this has not happened in the past and reiterating his view that the debate was an excuse to “blow up and quit.”
Smith then stated that the board would take a 10-minute recess, adding that “this is getting way out of hand.”
He added that he did not see why affordable housing needed to be discussed at the meeting since action would not occur until the new board is seated.
Smith and Hudson then began arguing about whether Smith had allowed Ramsey to take power from the board.
In response to a question from Tautges about why Ramsey demanded to discuss the issue, Hudson replied that “he wanted to be more powerful than the board.”
Following more dispute about Ramsey’s reasoning, Lewis clarified to Tautges that Ramsey asked for clarification on the issue during the manager’s talking points.
Ramsey then apologized for his “outburst” and said that he was trying to get clarification on how items should be placed on the agenda.
He added that he did discuss not placing Hudson’s item on the agenda with Smith.
Hudson then questioned if Ramsey discussed the issue with Smith before writing his response to Hudson stating that the item would not be placed on the agenda, citing that Ramsey’s message did not mention Smith.
Smith asked if the board could put Hudson’s item on the agenda for its next meeting.
Burns attempted to offer a suggestion to the board, but both Hudson and Smith told him he could not make one.
Hudson replied to Smith that Ramsey wanted a “clarification.”
In response to a question from Tautges, Ramsey stated that he got the clarification he needed.
Walsh then began speaking on “taking a step back” and appreciating “the emotional absurdity of the last 15 minutes, which I’ve contributed to.”
He commented that he found putting items requested by board members on the agenda only for discussion with no staff time dedicated to them to be an acceptable interpretation.
He proposed that the board rewind and that board members should not put on excessive numbers of items on the agenda, although he added that he does not believe board members did that.
“And we can chalk up all the histrionics and emotions to it being a pretty intense time in the district and maybe we don’t put the genie back in the bottle, we kind of respect everybody’s frustrations, and just move forward understanding everyone’s frustrations and see if we can’t just continue to make a go of this thing,” Walsh said.
He added that he was “embarrassed” with himself over his objections to “using the f-word” and that he appreciated people who express their emotions “honestly.”
Walsh commented that if Ramsey was actually unwilling to continue working for the district, then the board could seek alternatives, although he would prefer not to.
Walsh and Tautges then discussed the issue, with Walsh stating that he would like to hear from Ramsey about whether he would be willing to continue working for the district and Tautges noting that the board could discuss the agenda issue and difficulties with Ramsey in several ways.
Tautges proposed that the procedure for setting the agenda could be discussed at the next meeting.
Hudson suggested that the board voted to table discussion of this issue until after the board election and commented that Tautges’ suggestion was “inappropriate.”
He added that he would like to clarify to Ramsey that the board bylaws mean that any board member can add an item to agenda and that the staff and the board chairman cannot deny these requests.
Hudson moved to do this.
Boehmer asked if items requiring staff activity would have to be voted on by the board.
Hudson stated that he would make that part of his motion, with Boehmer then seconding the motion.
Walsh noted the importance of discussion to the board and how discussion of items with limited board interest would be limited.
The board then voted on the motion, with Smith, Walsh, Hudson and Boehmer voting in support and Tautges voting against, noting that he was not sure he understood what was happening and that he was opposing the motion and would explain his position more next month.
Smith then asked Ramsey to continue his talking points.
Before doing so, Ramsey apologized again to the board and stated that he received the clarification he needed.
“You got it. You’re fine,” Smith concluded.
In a Feb. 5 interview, Ramsey confirmed that he is continuing to work for the district and that a solution to the issues raised at the Jan. 30 meeting has been reached.
josh@pagosasun.com
