Dark Money Onslaught:

Out-of-State Funds Fuel Bid to Oust Montrose County Commissioner

A fierce battle is unfolding in Montrose targeting County Commissioner Scott Mijares, a conservative elected in November 2024 on a platform of fiscal restraint, Second Amendment rights, and rural empowerment. A recall effort, backed by over $16,000 in recent dark money as well as several notable Democratic Party operatives with no doubt more coming as election day nears, threatens to unseat him, raising concerns about external forces undermining local voters' will. This recall is a proxy war between Montrose's conservative values and national far-left foundations channeling funds through a web of nonprofits.

The Recall's Financial Backers

Public records reveal the Recall Scott Mijares Committee received $16,000 from Colorado Rural Voters since early October 2025, per its October 21 TRACER report filed with Colorado's Secretary of State. This significant sum aims to sway a conservative rural district. Colorado Rural Voters, presenting itself as a grassroots group promoting progressive candidates in Western Colorado, is far from local. Registered in 2008 as an arm of the Montana-based Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC), it funnels funds through nonprofits, primarily from out of state.

WORC's influence is evident. In 2023, it provided $187,500 to Western Colorado Alliance, a key conduit for its funds, which reported $2.6 million in total contributions that year. Western Colorado Alliance's Executive Director, Emily Hornback, also serves as Colorado Rural Voters' registered agent in Grand Junction, highlighting the tight connection. Colorado Rural Voters' disclosures show $130,730 in total contributions this cycle, with major donors like Western Conservation Action ($65,000), Green Advocacy Project ($50,000), and Movement Voter Project ($10,000), all tied to national environmental and far-left advocacy networks.

The dark money trail deepens with WORC's educational arm, the WORC Education Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that funded nearly its entire $2.8 million budget in 2017 to WORC and affiliates like Western Colorado Alliance. Its donors include the Tides Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Mott Foundation, Farm Aid, and NEO Philanthropy, national entities far removed from Montrose's rural roots. Colorado Rural Voters has raised $130,730 and spent $60,756, leaving funds for last-minute ad buys as the November 4 vote approaches.

As an example of how the “dark money” world operates, following is the narrative on who NEO Philanthropy is and how they and others are tied to Socialist Activists such as George Soros and the Soros backed Open Society Foundation.

Key Players and Their Connections

The recall involves figures with deep ties to left-wing socialist activism include prominent local Democratic Party members such as Phoebe Benziger and Linda Gann who have deep ties to the far-left Colorado Rural Voters organization. Looking deeper, we see out-of-area connections with individuals such as Steven Arauza, a Colorado Rural Voters operative and a former 2024 County Commissioner candidate in Garfield County who is married to Hanna Arauza, Western Colorado Alliance's Community Organizer staff member. The couple notably supported Glenwood Springs' first drag story time event in 2023, a move that stirred controversy in the conservative region. Their activism is seen by critics as a cover for flipping rural strongholds to align with urban progressive priorities, such as aggressive climate policies that clash with local energy jobs.

Caitlin Carey, another Colorado Rural Voters figure as well as a former 2024 County Commissioner candidate in Garfield County, aligns with the group's strategy of targeting rural races to install far-left leadership. Critics argue this advances policies like solar farm expansion, supported by local figures such as Sue Hansen and Don Coram, which prioritize environmental goals over Montrose's traditional industries.

A Pattern of Electoral Interference

Montrose is not alone. Colorado Rural Voters' tactics, voter guides, canvassing, and heavy funding, flipped or attempted to flip seats in Garfield and Ouray Counties in 2024, installing commissioners aligned with WORC's anti-extraction stance. Mijares, who campaigned to revive mining and protect constitutional rights, is a barrier to this agenda. His efforts, alongside Commissioner Sean Pond, of fiscal responsibility, separation of public safety tax accounting and resisting state and national overreach have drawn the ire of recall backers funded by foundations with a history of anti-fossil fuel campaigns.

The Stakes for Montrose

Montrose voters face a critical choice: uphold the conservative mandate or allow an orchestrated effort, funded by out-of-state elites, to prevail. Mijares' record, supporting agricultural, mining and logging jobs as well as rural healthcare, embodies Western Colorado's self-reliant ethos. Recall backers claim bipartisanship, but their funding suggests otherwise.

The recall is less about local grievances and more about external influence. Montrose voters must decide whether to reject this dark money push and preserve their conservative values. Voting "NO" on the recall is a stand against out-of-state interference and a defense of local control.

The Far-Left’s Attempted Takeover of Montrose County

As the election heats up in Montrose County, voters face a critical juncture. What appears on the surface as a routine ballot hides a calculated push by far-left forces to reshape our community. This is not just about local governance. It is an orchestrated effort by the far-left to dismantle conservative leadership and impose a radical agenda. From the recall of a dedicated county commissioner to deceptive city charter amendments and school board races, the stakes could not be higher. Conservatives of all flavors, Republican, Independent and Democrats alike must recognize this for what it is: an attempted takeover that threatens the values we hold dear. If we fail to act, Montrose County risks sliding into the same far-left policies that have plagued other parts of the state.

The Recall, A Baseless Attack on Conservative Leadership

The recall effort, targeting a duly elected county commissioner, is a cornerstone of the far-left’s strategy. Driven by left-wing activists and a handful of former disgruntled Republicans, this initiative claims to address grievances. Yet, no legitimate, substantive issues are presented. The petition is filled with rhetoric and unsubstantiated allegations, lacking any factual basis. It is a personality conflict, nothing more. All one need do is an ounce of research to understand that the allegations within the petition are a red-hearing with zero substance. The real goal is to oust a conservative voice and replace that voice a far left-wing environmentalist (Kirsten Copeland), hand-picked by Commissioner Sue Hansen. Hansen, who is in lock-step with figures like far-Left Senators Michael Bennett and John Hickenlooper, Governor Jared Polis, and Jeff Hurd, envisions a Montrose County molded by a far-left agenda. Commissioners like Scott Mijares and Sean Pond have been vital roadblocks against this agenda, standing firm for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and traditional values. Removing them would open the floodgates to policies prioritizing extreme environmentalism over local jobs, property rights, and economic growth. Voting NO on the recall is essential to preserve our county’s independence.

The City Charter Amendment, A “Woke” Power Grab

The Montrose City Charter Amendment is Billed as a harmless tweak to streamline city council operations. Nothing could be further from the truth. City officials deliberately placed it on this ballot instead of the next municipal election to capitalize on the ideological fervor of off-year elections. The recall, rooted in animosity toward conservative principles, is mobilizing left-leaning voters who will likely support these changes. The ballot language reveals the true intent: “Remove gender-specific language.” This push for gender neutrality is a hallmark of far-left ideology, clashing with Montrose’s Western traditions and common sense. Further provisions could consolidate power among insiders, shielding them from accountability. This is not about efficiency but about entrenching far-left ideals under the guise of modernization. Conservatives must reject this by VOTING NO on the amendments.

The School Board, Reclaiming Our Classrooms

The school board race is a another battleground where the left has previously succeeded through conservative complacency. Four years ago, Republicans sat out, allowing progressive candidates like Sarah Fishering to secure seats, thanks to a counter-campaign led by Don Coram, a key figure behind the recall. This time, conservative candidates Neisha Balleck, Scott Scarborough, Tiffany Vincent, and Shane Daly are stepping up. Balleck emphasizes transparency and community involvement, Scarborough focuses on fiscal oversight, Vincent advocates for values-based environments, and Daly pushes back against educational overreach. Supporting them means reclaiming our schools from divisive ideologies and ensuring they prioritize academic excellence and parental rights.

A Broader Threat, Measures 6A, 6B, LL, and MM

Beyond these, the ballot includes measures like 6A, 6B, LL, and MM, often cloaked in neutral language but aligned with far-left priorities. Whether they involve tax hikes, regulatory expansions, or environmental mandates, they fit the left’s broader agenda. A blanket NO on these measures is a stand for limited government and personal freedom.

The Left’s Strategy and its Ramifications

The left’s strategy is clear: exploit divisions, mobilize their base through recalls and amendments, and flip institutions like the school board. If successful, we will see higher taxes, eroded liberties, and a cultural shift away from self-reliance.

But we have the power to stop it. Conservatives, independents, and anyone who values Montrose’s heritage must vote:

NO on the: Recall,  NO on: 6A and 6B,  NO on the: City Charter,  NO on: LL and MM.

Vote for Neisha Balleck, Scott Scarborough, Tiffany Vincent, and Shane Daly for school board.

This election is about safeguarding our home from external agendas.

By standing united, we can keep Montrose County strong, free, and true to its roots. The time to act is now!

Stop the Indoctrination:

Vote NO on Montrose Library Measures 6A and 6B

Protect Our Kids and Our Wallets!

Montrose County Voters: Your Ballots Arrive Starting October 11, 2025



Act Now to Defend Family Values!

As mailboxes across Montrose County fill with ballots for the November 4, 2025 election, one thing is crystal clear: the Montrose Regional Library District (MRLD) is back at your door, begging for more of your hard-earned tax dollars. But this isn't about books and quiet reading corners anymore. It's about funding a relentless push of LGBTQ+ propaganda, controversial "story times," and programs that undermine the traditional family values that make Montrose a special place to raise our children.

Measures 6A and 6B aren't innocent extensions of a "temporary" tax hike, they're a permanent power grab that will lock in higher property taxes forever while supercharging the library's divisive agenda. We've seen the photos: displays and events that prioritize radical ideologies over wholesome education. If child grooming is building trust to exploit and desensitize kids to inappropriate behavior, as experts define it, then why is our library hosting RGB story times and diversity pushes that fly in the face of Montrose's core principles?

Don't let the slick "Keep Your Library Strong" campaign fool you. The library already got everything it promised in 2017. Now, it's time to say NO. Here's why you must vote against both measures, and how they're connected to a broader political assault on our community.

Measure 6A: No to Permanent Tax Hikes for Radical Agendas

Back in 2017, voters generously approved a "temporary" 0.85 mill levy increase – bumping the total from 3.0 to 3.85 mills – with a clear expiration in 2027. In exchange, the MRLD swore to deliver five specific goals. And guess what? They've done it. The library's open seven days a week, the collection has exploded (thanks to joining networks like Marmot, Libby, and Kanopy, plus that odd "Library of Things"), programs for all ages are ramped up, and they've even spruced up buildings with HVAC upgrades and a telehealth room in Naturita.

They've kept their word, so why make this tax hike permanent now locked in forever, 

no sunset, no accountability.

But here's the real kicker: this money isn't just for books. It's fueling the very controversies that have turned our library into a battleground. LGBTQ+ "diversity" displays, story times that introduce young children to gender-bending themes, these aren't neutral. They're deliberate efforts to normalize what many Montrose families see as harmful to our kids' innocence. Books and promotions that prioritize activist agendas over timeless family reading.

We've achieved the goals. Let the levy expire as promised. Vote NO on 6A to force real accountability and stop subsidizing this "garbage," as one concerned parent put it.

Measure 6B: Don't Let Denver Politicians, or Local Activists,

Dilute Your Voice with Unchecked Spending

If 6A is bad, 6B is the escape hatch that makes it worse. In 2024, the Colorado Legislature wisely capped property tax revenue growth for special districts like ours at 5.25% annually – a safeguard against runaway spending. But the MRLD wants you to waive that limit, claiming Montrose's growth (hello, new residents discovering our beautiful area!) demands it.

Without 6B, even if 6A passes, the levy gets effectively halved due to the cap. The library projects 11% growth in 2026, whining about losing $400,000 – or about $13 more per year on that $500,000 home if waived. They say it's like the old TABOR fights, and voters should decide, not "politicians in Denver."

Sounds reasonable? Think again. Waiving this cap means unlimited growth in taxes and spending, ratcheting up year after year with no brakes. That extra cash? Straight to more "innovative programs" like teen advisory boards churning out literary magazines on identity politics, "Teens Teach Tech" sessions laced with far left-wing talking points, and adult "crafternoons" that veer into current events indoctrination.

Remember 1999? Voters waived TABOR limits then, and look where it's led: a library more focused on social engineering than serving all families equally. A NO on 6B enforces fiscal discipline and starves the beast funding these controversies. Let the cap do its job – Vote NO on 6B!

Montrose, are we really ready to hand the County over to the Left?

In Montrose County, conservatives face a troubling crossroads. The ongoing recall effort against Commissioner Scott Mijares threatens to deliver control of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to the left. This uncomfortable and frankly angering situation stems directly from Mijares himself. Mijares had a clear path to avert this chaos. He could have stepped down voluntarily, enabling the vacancy committee to appoint a successor. This move would have deflated the recall effort entirely, halting what amounts to a baseless witch hunt. No one claims Mijares is flawless by any stretch. Mijares is brash and condescending, and he would benefit from Dale Carnegie's “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. He might also draw lessons from Ronald Reagan's graceful handling of opponents. Emulating Donald Trump's personality traits is hardly a model to aspire to in local governance. That said, these are personal shortcomings, not policy failures.

...Mijares is brash and condescending, and he would benefit

from Dale Carnegie's “How to Win Friends and Influence People”...

The Recall Committee's chosen candidate, Kirsten Copeland, brings little to the table beyond two decades as a park ranger and a reputation as a staunch environmentalist. Her election could however tip the scales, allowing the Gunnison Outdoor Resource Protection Act (GORP) to gain majority support on the BOCC, while a federal initiative, the passage of GORP would devastate the economic base of Montrose County. Other initiatives within the county may also suffer with such alignment present on the BOCC such as the Shavano Valley Conservation District initiatives currently underway.  Recent actions by Commissioner Sue Hansen (a former Republican who departed the GOP in April 2025), including her alignments with figures like Bennett, Hickenlooper, and Hurd, suggest she has moved away from her former conservative principles and fueled her shift to the ideological left.

..."If personality alone justified recalls, Hansen herself would have faced

ouster long ago for her own snarky interactions with colleagues"...

At its core, this recall distracts from what truly matters in elections: policy, not popularity. Voters choose representatives based on their platforms and visions for the community, not because of interpersonal friction or perceived meanness. If personality alone justified recalls, Hansen herself would have faced ouster long ago for her own snarky interactions with colleagues. Conservatives must pause and scrutinize the recall's origins. Before Mijares even took office, several figures within the community vowed to target him for recall; the motive was simple resentment. Mijares had defeated their preferred candidate in the primary, and personal dislike fueled the entire endeavor.

This vendetta has drawn in other disgruntled and disgraced Republicans operating behind the scenes, such as the disgraced former Chair of the Montrose County Republican Party, Ray Langston; former State Senator Don Coram; and Commissioner Sue Hansen. Coram, censured by the local GOP and at least eight counties for his leftist stances and endorsements of Democrats over staunch conservatives like Lauren Boebert, has been actively involved in the recall campaign, as evidenced by his name appearing in campaign documents and his vocal criticisms during public hearings on county issues like solar regulations. Hansen, despite her recent exit from the Republican Party, remains a key driver, leveraging her board position to oppose Mijares at every turn and aligning with the recall's broader push. These figures (not the public face of the committee) are the true architects of this intra-party sabotage, motivated by ideological differences and personal grudges rather than any substantive policy disputes.

...This vendetta has drawn in other disgruntled and disgraced Republicans operating behind the scenes,

such as the disgraced former Chair of the Montrose County Republican Party, Ray Langston; former State Senator Don Coram; and Commissioner Sue Hansen....

The Recall Committee skillfully framed its petition's grievances as undeniable facts. In truth, these are hollow allegations that crumble under scrutiny. Let's examine each claim in turn and reveal the reality.

1. Violation of Colorado's Open Meetings Law: The accusation falls flat. Former County Manager Frank Rodriguez submitted his resignation voluntarily, and the board never formally accepted it under his contract terms. County Attorney Martha Whitmore tendered her resignation several times to Commissioners Mijares and Pond on her own initiative, without any pressure. Crucially, no decisions occurred outside of public meetings, ensuring full compliance with the law.

2. Wasted Taxpayer Dollars: Claims of wasted taxpayer dollars are equally unfounded. The severance payments to Rodriguez ($86,746.50) and Whitmore ($90,648.50) represented exactly six months of their respective salaries, as required by their employment contracts. The full BOCC approved these payouts, and no extra funds went toward backfilling positions or inflated legal costs.

3. The North Campus Project: Regarding the North Campus Project, the outgoing board locked in a $25 million commitment on December 18, 2024. This decision depleted capital improvement funds and necessitated $10 million in debt. Mijares wisely proposed a pause to allow the incoming board to assess the project's massive budgetary implications. The board rejected this prudent motion, but no contract breach resulted from it.

4. Handling of the Public Health Director Position: The handling of the Public Health Director position followed legal protocols. Under Colorado Revised Statute 25-1-508, the County Board of Health bears responsibility for selecting the director. The initial process had bypassed this requirement. As BOCC Chairman, Mijares properly convened the Board of Health, which then conducted a transparent review of candidates and made a lawful appointment. Far from a demotion, this corrected an unfilled vacancy that lacked legal standing.

5. Creating a Toxic Work Environment: Finally, the vague charge of creating a toxic work environment offers no substantiation. Mijares has instead focused on bolstering transparency and accountability within the BOCC. His efforts emphasize fiscal responsibility and rebuilding public trust, which benefit the entire county. The "toxic work environment" that Leslie Quan (the County HR Director and interim County Manager at the time) referenced was not enough for her to tender her full resignation, only from the interim County Manager position. This begs the question: If you remain in a position where you are still reporting to the same people, how toxic is it really?

...This was a calculated and coordinated attempt to get all of us to take our eyes off of what is really important,

preserving the family values that we all grew up with here in Montrose, values that are under attack...

This recall is not about governance or accountability. It is a vendetta driven by bruised egos and ideological opposition from figures like Langston, Coram and Hansen, repackaged as righteous indignation.  This was a calculated and coordinated attempt to get all of us to take our eyes off of what is really important, preserving the family values that we all grew up with here in Montrose, values that are under attack. Montrose County cannot afford to let personality quirks eclipse proven policy leadership. Mijares may not win charm contests, but his platform aligns with conservative values that prioritize fiscal prudence, legal adherence, and community-focused decision-making. Rejecting this recall means safeguarding our county from left-leaning influences and ensuring elections remain contests of ideas, not interpersonal drama. It's time to rally behind policy over pettiness and keep Montrose on a steady, conservative course.  Do you want to ensure the values that you grew up with remain in Montrose, or that the radical socialism takes root and never lets go?

Montrose, you need to ask yourself are you really ready to hand over the county

that you love to the far left-wing activists over a personality conflict?

Nepotism in Montrose Government:

Ethical Lapses That Fail the Smell Test

The Erosion of Public Trust

In Montrose, personal relationships often intersect with professional duties, the line between convenience and conflict can blur dangerously. Recently allegations of nepotism within city government came to light when Police Chief Blaine Hall, hiring his own son to work in the Montrose Police Department, raised serious questions about fairness and accountability. Similarly, City Manager Bill Bell has faced scrutiny for employing his son and daughter in city roles. While these practices may not violate the law outright, they create profound conflicts of interest that undermine public confidence. Nepotism at high levels fosters perceptions of favoritism, and fails basic smell test of ethical governance.

The Case of Police Chief Blaine Hall

Blaine Hall has served as Montrose's Police Chief since 2018, overseeing a department responsible for the safety of over 20,000 residents. Reports suggest he hired his son directly onto the force, a move that, while perhaps expedient, reeks of impropriety. In a department where the chief holds ultimate authority over promotions, evaluations, and disciplinary actions, employing a family member introduces unavoidable bias.

Colorado law does not explicitly ban such hires in local police departments, but it strongly discourages them. Under Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-18-105, public officials are urged to avoid assisting family members in obtaining employment where a conflict exists. This statute highlights the ethical tightrope: while not illegal, the practice invites scrutiny over whether the chief's decisions prioritize family over public interest. If the son sought a career in local law enforcement, alternatives like the Sheriff's Office existed, where there is a definite need within the community, and free from direct familial oversight. Choosing otherwise not only looks bad but also risks legal challenges if perceived favoritism leads to unequal treatment, complicating the department's operations and morale.

Bill Bell and Familial Ties in City Hall

City Manager Bill Bell, in office since 2011, faces parallel accusations of nepotism by hiring his son and daughter into city positions. As the top administrator overseeing budgets, hires, and policies, Bell's role demands impartiality. Yet, employing relatives under his purview creates a web of conflicts that extend beyond mere appearance. For instance, budget allocations or performance reviews involving family could be tainted by personal loyalties, leading to decisions that favor family over qualified outsiders or even city needs.

Local discussions, including in community forums and publications like the Montrose Mirror, have spotlighted these hires as emblematic of broader ethical lapses. One report questions whether such practices constitute nepotism, hiring family over qualified candidates, in a city already grappling with transparency issues. Bell has addressed conflicts involving independent contractors, but familial employment adds another layer of complication. State ethics guidelines under SB17-150 prohibit public officials from directly employing relatives in supervised roles, yet enforcement at the local level often relies on self-policing. This laxity allows situations where, even if legal, the optics scream favoritism, especially when city resources fund family salaries amid taxpayer scrutiny.

Broader Conflicts of Interest and Complications

These cases exemplify how nepotism complicates governance without crossing into outright illegality. Conflicts arise in multiple forms: financial, where family hires could influence budget decisions; operational, where relatives might receive preferential assignments; and perceptual, where the public views officials as self-serving. In Montrose, a city with limited job pools, proponents might argue that hiring qualified family addresses staffing shortages, as seen in the police department's recruitment struggles. However, this rationale does not pass the smell test. It ignores alternatives like external recruitment or inter-agency transfers, which preserve integrity.

Nationally, precedents like the federal anti-nepotism statute (5 U.S.C. § 3110) ban relatives in direct reporting lines, a model Colorado could emulate more stringently. Locally, Montrose's city code emphasizes ethical conduct, yet lacks robust enforcement against familial conflicts. This gap allows issues to fester, as evidenced by community charges of favoritism by the chief and council. Such perceptions can deter talented applicants, fearing a closed system, and invite lawsuits over discrimination or unequal treatment.

Moreover, these hires intersect with other city controversies, amplifying distrust. When officials like Bell, who has been urged to step down after nearly 14 years, engage in questionable practices, it compounds views of entrenched power. Conflicts extend to potential misuse of influence.

The Human and Systemic Costs

Beyond ethics, nepotism imposes real costs. Family hires often mirror the demographics and views of those in power, limiting fresh perspectives in a growing community. The complications are multifaceted: while state law permits discretion, federal guidelines and national conferences highlight nepotism's risks to public service. In Colorado, bills like HB21-1250 aim to enhance law enforcement accountability, yet overlook internal hiring ethics. This oversight allows practices that, though legal, erode trust.

Reforming for Integrity

Montrose must adopt stricter anti-nepotism policies, mandating disclosures and independent reviews for family hires. Leaders like Hall and Bell should recuse themselves from decisions involving relatives, or better yet, avoid such situations entirely. Tolerating nepotism normalizes conflicts that complicate governance and fail ethical scrutiny. It is not about punishing ambition but ensuring fairness. Montrose deserves officials who pass the smell test, fostering a government truly for the people. Let’s end this cycle before it further damages our community.

Taxpayer-Funded Perks for the Elite:

Time to Reclaim Montrose's Priorities

The Core Issue: Favoritism Over Fairness



Montrose, Colorado, was once a beacon of Western resilience, a place where hard work and community spirit built a thriving small town. But under the stewardship of City Manager Bill Bell, that spirit has been supplanted by a vision that prioritizes the comforts of a privileged few over the needs of the many. The latest example? A taxpayer-funded daycare center exclusively for city employees, carved out of a renovated old charter school at a cost of $850,000, with ongoing operational expenses sure to follow. While city workers enjoy competitive salaries and robust benefits packages, the majority of Montrose residents scrape by on minimum-wage retail jobs. This is not governance; it is favoritism, funded by sales taxes that already burden our community more heavily than many expect from a Rocky Mountain outpost.

Economic Disparities in Montrose

Consider the irony. Montrose's economy, shaped by Bell's "grand vision," revolves around tourism, outdoor recreation, and service-sector gigs that pay little and demand much. The median household income here hovers around $50,000, with countless families juggling multiple low-wage roles just to cover basics. Retail clerks at local shops, servers in our diners, and seasonal workers in the orchards earn Colorado's minimum of $14.42 per hour, often without the overtime or stability afforded to public servants. Yet Bell, ever the architect of elite enclaves, has convinced the City Council to green-light this City employee-only childcare facility. Approved unanimously in a recent work session, the project will serve up to 50 children of municipal workers, with the city handling renovations before outsourcing daily operations. No provisions for the broader community, no sliding-scale fees for struggling parents, no outreach to the underprivileged families who truly need affordable care. This is daycare as a perk, not a public good.

The Financial Sleight of Hand

The financial sleight of hand is staggering. That $850,000 could have bolstered our parks, repaired pothole-riddled roads on North Townsend Avenue, or expanded mental health services at the local clinic. Instead, it funnels directly into a benefit that mirrors corporate executive lounges more than small-town equity. City employees, already drawing average annual salaries exceeding $60,000 plus health coverage and pensions that outpace private-sector norms, now get subsidized childcare to boot. Meanwhile, a single mother working checkout at the grocery store faces waitlists for private daycares costing $1,200 a month per child, forcing her to choose between employment and family. Bell's proposal, passed without a whisper of public input, underscores a disconnect: our "leaders" serve their court, not the commons.

Montrose's Crushing Tax Burden

Worse still, this largesse arrives amid a tax regime that squeezes residents dry. Montrose boasts a combined sales and use tax rate of 8.53 percent, comprising 2.9 percent state, 1.75 percent county, and a hefty 3.88 percent city levy that includes the Montrose Recreation District. For restaurants and lodging, it climbs to 9.33 percent and 9.43 percent, respectively. Adding insult to injury, Montrose is one of the few places in Colorado that levies sales tax on food for home consumption, a policy that hits low-income families hardest. Unlike most of the state, where groceries are exempt from sales tax, Montrose residents pay the full 8.53 percent on every loaf of bread and gallon of milk, further straining budgets already stretched thin. In a town where the cost of living edges higher due to our remote location and reliance on imported goods, every purchase feels like a toll. Groceries, gas, school supplies, all inflated by this rate, which ranks among the highest in Colorado and rivals the Golden State's notorious burdens.

Comparing Taxes: Montrose vs. California

California, often pegged as the poster child for over taxation, maintains a statewide sales tax base of 7.25 percent, but local add-ons push the average combined rate to 8.85 percent across its cities and counties. Places like Los Angeles hit 9.5 percent or more, and San Francisco reaches 8.625 percent, but even these pale against the sticker shock in less urban spots. Montrose's 8.53 percent total eclipses California's baseline and matches or exceeds rates in many of its mid-sized locales, like Sacramento at 8.75 percent or Fresno at 8.2 percent. We are not coastal elites with Silicon Valley subsidies; we are a landlocked community of 20,000, where a family of four spends over $4,000 annually on sales taxes alone for essentials. Bell's daycare splurge, drawn from this pot, is not just tone-deaf; it is predatory, extracting from the working poor to pamper the employed elite.

A Pattern of Insider Favoritism

This pattern is no anomaly. Under Bell's tenure, Montrose has seen a parade of projects that favor insiders: lavish public works facilities rubber-stamped for efficiency, yet ballooning in cost; sales tax hikes floated to fund pet initiatives without voter say. Recall the proposed county sales tax increase he championed earlier this year, layered atop our already steep local rates. Each increment chips away at disposable income, forcing residents to forgo vacations or home repairs after winter storms. Childcare deserts plague rural Colorado, with only 22 spots per 100 children under five in Montrose County, far below national averages. A true leader would partner with nonprofits or leverage state grants for universal access, not lock the doors to city hall's inner circle.

The Human Toll and Inequality

The human toll is palpable. A retail associate at a local outdoor store, earning at best $15 an hour after tips dry up post-summer. With two young kids qualifies for no public aid, and private daycare eats 40 percent of their paycheck. When they learn their taxes are subsidizing spots for the planning department's offspring, the betrayal stings. "We're the ones keeping shelves stocked and tourists happy," they might say, "yet our kids get nothing." This resentment festers, eroding trust in institutions meant to uplift all. Bell's defenders may tout retention: happy employees mean better service. But at what cost? Studies show public-sector perks like this exacerbate inequality, widening the gulf between haves and have-nots in towns like Montrose.

A Time for Change

As autumn colors on the Uncompahgre Plateau change, resolve to act. Attend the next council meeting on October 7. VOTE NO to the City Charter Amendment hitting the Ballot this fall, the City Council and Bill Bell do not need ANY MORE expansion of power given to them by the We the People of Montrose. 

As we see new candidates emerge this coming  January for City Council’s election in April of 2026, support candidates who champion the people of Montrose over the bureaucrat. Montrose's soul is in its people, not its City worker perks. Are you tired of funding oblivion yet? Join the chorus demanding change. Our taxes built this town; they should rebuild it for everyone, not just Bill Bell’s court.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Protecting Our Children from Tax-Funded Indoctrination

The Erosion of Public Institutions

In an era where public institutions should safeguard innocence, libraries, funded by taxpayer dollars, have become battlegrounds for ideological agendas. Programs like Drag Queen Story Hour, often presented under the guise of promoting transgenderism, are luring children into confusing and potentially harmful concepts. These initiatives, touted as inclusive, mask a deeper issue: the normalization of what many experts view as a manifestation of mental illness among adults, who then impose their confusion on vulnerable youth. This is not tolerance; it is a form of grooming that exploits children's natural curiosity and developmental uncertainties.

Historical Condemnation of Gender-Blurring Behaviors

Historically, behaviors associated with transgenderism, such as cross-dressing, were not celebrated but prosecuted as threats to social order. In the United States, from the mid-19th century through the late 20th century, numerous cities enforced anti-cross-dressing laws. For instance, ordinances in places like San Francisco and New York criminalized wearing clothing of the opposite sex, leading to arrests and convictions. These laws, often rooted in vagrancy statutes, aimed to prevent deception and maintain public decency. By the 1980s, challenges in courts began overturning them, but the shift marked a departure from centuries of societal norms that viewed such actions as aberrant. In imperial China, during the Qing dynasty, masquerading in women's attire as a man was a capital offense, reflecting a global historical consensus against blurring gender lines in ways that could disrupt society. What was once legally and culturally condemned is now paraded as progress.

Linking Transgenderism to Mental Health Disorders

Today, the left champions these programs as "normal," but evidence suggests otherwise. Transgenderism is frequently linked to underlying mental health disorders. A psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins University has described it as a mental disorder, emphasizing that sex changes are biologically impossible and do not resolve the core issues. Studies show transgender individuals face elevated risks of mood and anxiety disorders, with data indicating consistent increases in psychological distress. Another analysis highlights greater vulnerability to depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts among this population. These conditions often predate any gender identity exploration, suggesting that transgender identification may stem from unresolved mental illnesses rather than innate traits.

The Risks Posed by Library Story Hours

When adults with these issues interact with children in library settings, the risk escalates. Drag Queen Story Hour, where performers in exaggerated cross-dress attire read to kids, has sparked widespread controversy. Critics argue it contributes to the sexualization or grooming of children, introducing concepts of gender fluidity at ages when kids are ill-equipped to process them. Protests at libraries in states like California and New York have accused these events of normalizing degenerate behavior and grooming by exposing young minds to adult-themed performances. In Huntington Beach, a recent story time event drew outrage, with community members labeling it as inappropriate for children. Even some online discussions acknowledge that such programs induce cognitive dissonance unsuitable for young viewers, requiring adult nuance to navigate.

 Libraries across the country host similar events under various names.

Montrose Public Library is no exception. Back on August 13th in the Montrose Public Library Meeting Room they had the RGB Club calling it "A safe space for teeni-ish dames, dolls, dudes, and allies to discuss the colorful spectrum of queer-based perspectives in books, comics, and games." These are not benign story sessions; they plant seeds of confusion funded by public money. And they want to increase the funding for the Library District?   NO WAY, NO HOW!  I am VOTING NO ON 6A and 6B…

Exacerbating Adolescent Confusion and Long-Term Harm

Adolescence is already a tumultuous period, filled with identity questions and peer pressures. Introducing the notion that one can "be whatever they want" regarding gender exacerbates this turmoil, leading to dire consequences. Research on detransition reveals that regrets are more common than admitted. While some studies claim low rates, others indicate detransition occurs in 2% to 10% of cases, higher than previously reported, often due to realization that transition did not alleviate underlying issues. Accurate rates remain unknown, as many detransitioners face stigma and drop out of follow-up care. A US study of 28,000 trans adults found 8% had detransitioned, with most citing societal pressure rather than resolution.

Gender-affirming care for minors, often promoted alongside these library programs, carries significant risks. While benefits are uncertain, harms to sexual and reproductive functions are definite, including infertility and loss of natural development. Post-surgery suicide rates among transgender individuals remain alarmingly high, up to 20 times the general population, indicating that interventions do not cure the mental distress. For children, this confusion can lead to irreversible decisions, like puberty blockers or surgeries, with lifelong regrets. Bans on such care for minors in some states reflect growing awareness of these dangers, though opponents frame them as harmful.

Reclaiming Our Institutions for the Sake of Our Children

Allowing mentally unstable adults to influence children in taxpayer-funded spaces is not progressive; it is reckless. Libraries should foster learning, not ideological experiments that prey on impressionable minds. This celebration by the left ignores the sickness at its core: a demented push to confuse and alter young lives. Civilized societies protect their youth from such predation. It is time to reclaim our institutions, defund these programs, and treat the underlying mental illnesses with therapy, not affirmation that leads to harm. Our children's futures depend on it. Let us return to prosecuting exploitation, not parading it as virtue.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Addressing Misrepresentations

Dennis Anderson has once again taken statements and intent out of context to suit his narrative. My intent was to step back from discussions about the recall effort for now. Quite frankly, I was exhausted after the past month or so dealing with the entire mess. But then I saw the drivel from Mr. Anderson in the Montrose Press. Even though I had come to terms with the situation, I knew Commissioner Mijares could have chosen the right path but did not. Instead, he has only deepened his troubles through missteps that he seems unable to reverse. This ongoing behavior has made a challenging situation even worse for everyone involved.

While Dennis and his supporters remain obsessed with the resignations of Frank and Marti, it is important to clarify the facts. Frank was indeed a pleasant individual, but he lacked the qualifications needed for his role as County Manager. Marti, as County Attorney, demonstrated inadequacies in her performance. Both positions served at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the board made a decision, like it or not.  However, these resignations were never the core reason for the recall. The petition's stated reasons also do not capture the true motivations behind it. Dennis knows this full well, yet his stubbornness prevents him from acknowledging it, as doing so would dismantle the story he has been promoting relentlessly.

Citing Leslie Quon's resignation letter as an authoritative source is a significant overreach. Her credibility is undermined by her willingness to remain in what she described as a "toxic environment" solely to preserve her substantial six-figure salary. Furthermore, Commissioner Pond's statement about working to remove corrupt or ineffective county leadership to restore accountability does not imply any wrongdoing or forced resignations. It is simply a commitment to better governance. Dennis, let’s not allow inconvenient facts interfere with your preferred storyline. Clinging to this narrative reveals a lack of substance. There is truly nothing substantial to these claims.

To expand on this, consider the broader context of county governance. Boards often make personnel changes to align with their vision for efficiency and accountability. In Montrose County, these decisions were made in the interest of the public, not out of malice. Dennis's fixation ignores historical precedents where such transitions are commonplace. 

The Origins and True Purpose of the Recall

The recall effort was in motion long before Commissioner Mijares took his oath of office. It had no connection to the resignations of Frank or Marti. This plan was openly discussed by figures like Ray Langston, the disgraced former Chair of the Montrose County Republican Central Committee. It was then carried out publicly by his associates, including Jim Hogsmith, Phoebe Benzinger, and Linda Ganz. These individuals have a history of political maneuvering that prioritizes personal agendas over community welfare.

As I outlined in my previous article a couple of weeks ago, Commissioner Mijares has become his own greatest adversary. He would benefit immensely from a course like Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." His interpersonal skills have fallen short, and merely acknowledging the need for improvement without taking concrete steps is insufficient. Actions speak louder than words in leadership roles, and Mijares has yet to demonstrate meaningful change.

Langston's involvement is marred by his own controversies, along with his cohorts, Don Coram and Commissioner Sue Hansen added fuel to the fire. Their unethical conduct and actions are well known and documented in previous articles available here on the coDOGEreport.com as well as in the Montrose Mirror. Along with Haugness, Benziger, and Gann, as their allies and the public face, amplified these grievances through the organized campaign that mobilized signatures for the petition. This was not a spontaneous reaction to specific events but a calculated strategy to reshape the county's political landscape.

Moreover, the petition's language, while formal, masked underlying motivations tied to ideological differences and power struggles. Voters were presented with surface-level concerns, but the driving force was a desire to realign the BOCC with certain factional interests. This premeditated nature underscores why the resignations are a red herring in Dennis's arguments. Understanding this timeline is crucial for Montrose residents to see through the misinformation and evaluate the recall on its merits.

Commissioner Mijares' Leadership Challenges

Commissioner Mijares's approach to governance has highlighted significant areas for growth. His communication style often alienates potential allies, turning what could be collaborative efforts into confrontations. In a county like Montrose, where community consensus is key to progress, such shortcomings can stall important initiatives.

It is worth noting that effective leadership involves not just policy expertise but also the ability to build coalitions. Mijares could apply principles of Carnegie by engaging in community forums, listening sessions, and outreach programs as has been noted in a previous article by this author. Instead, his inaction on self-improvement has perpetuated divisions. This is not an attack on his character but a call for accountability, as public servants must evolve to meet the demands of their roles.

In the context of the recall, these personal flaws have been exaggerated by opponents to paint a picture of incompetence. However, separating fact from exaggeration is essential. Mijares has achieved some successes, such as advocating for fiscal responsibility, but his relational deficits overshadow them. If he addressed these, he might mitigate the recall's momentum and foster a more unified county government.

Personal Reflections on Friendship and Loyalty

On a personal note, yes, Scott Mijares is my friend, and I have been among his strongest advocates. However, the harsh realities surrounding this recall and his handling of it have strained that relationship. I am deeply saddened by this development, as I hold friendships in high regard. My closest friend and I have maintained a bond since we were 12 years old, treating each other like brothers through life's ups and downs.

This fracture illustrates the toll that politics can take on personal connections. Supporting someone publicly does not mean blind loyalty; it requires honesty when mistakes are made. In Mijares's case, my candid feedback on his need for better interpersonal skills stems from genuine concern, not disloyalty. Friendships thrive on truth, and withholding criticism would be a disservice to not only him but to myself and other around us.

Reflecting further, this situation reminds me of broader life lessons. In any community, whether political or social, relationships are the foundation of progress. When leaders prioritize ego over empathy, they risk isolating supporters. My experience here serves as a cautionary tale for others in public life: nurture alliances, admit faults, and work toward reconciliation. Despite the sadness, I remain hopeful that bridges can be rebuilt if Mijares takes proactive steps.

Insights into Party Dynamics and Electorate Conversations

Regarding the electorate and the guidance provided to Mijares by the MCRCC, Dennis Anderson lacks accurate insight. He is not privy to those private discussions, and to be clear, neither am I. That said, I am familiar with the overall atmosphere within the party, an environment from which Anderson is excluded. He is not welcome at meetings, though I suspect he relies on informants for partial information. His access diminished notably after Sue Hansen's departure from the party.

The MCRCC operates in a insular manner, with conversations often centered on strategy and alignment. These are not public forums, and outsiders like Anderson can only speculate. His claims about what was communicated to Mijares are baseless, rooted in secondhand gossip rather than facts. The party's dynamics involve complex interactions, including debates over candidate endorsements and policy directions, which Anderson misinterprets to fit his agenda.  Anderson's exclusion stems from his own controversial history. Relying on outdated or incomplete intelligence leads to flawed analyses, as seen in his writing.

A Thorough Critique of Representative Jeff Hurd

Now, turning to Jeff Hurd, our so-called "Representative," where do I even begin? Let's examine his recent actions. Hurd was one of only four Republicans who declined to support the censure of Representative Ilhan Omar, (an in depth story can be found here), and the removal of her committee assignments. This followed her inflammatory responses to the Charlie Kirk incident and her statements prioritizing Somalia over American interests. Such positions demand accountability, yet Hurd's refusal speaks volumes about his priorities.

Additionally, Hurd's stance on the GORP Act is misguided and detrimental to Montrose County. This legislation threatens economic harm by restricting land use and development opportunities critical to our local economy. Industries like agriculture and tourism could suffer irreversible setbacks. Despite this, Hurd shows indifference toward Montrose. He has been invited multiple times to speak in the county, only to dismiss it with the remark that "Montrose is not worth it." This statement predates any resolutions by Mijares and Pond or the Black Canyon fires, indicating a longstanding disregard.

Hurd's visit after the fires was nothing more than a phot-op to feign concern. In reality, he cares little for the county's welfare. Within the Republican caucus, Hurd commands minimal respect, largely due to his reliance on major Democratic donors. Sources indicate that his decision to protect Omar's positions aligns with shared donor interests, compromising his independence.

Expanding on Hurd's record, his voting patterns reveal a pattern of moderation that alienates conservative constituents. For Montrose, which relies on robust representation in Congress for federal funding and policy support, Hurd's apathy is unforgivable. His donor ties raise questions about influence, potentially prioritizing external agendas over local needs. Constituents of Montrose County and CD-3 deserve a representative who invests time in understanding and advocating for their concerns, not one who views the county as expendable.

Dennis Anderson's Tainted Perspective

Dennis, please spare us your hypocritical lectures. Your professed concern for Montrose County's well-being lacks authenticity. You do not even reside in Montrose; your home is in Delta County, which stands to gain from the GORP Act if it passes. This inherent bias taints your opinions on the matter, making them self-serving rather than objective.

Dennis Anderson's narrative is built on distortions and selective facts. The recall's true origins, Mijares's self-inflicted wounds, and Hurd's inadequacies all point to deeper issues in our local politics. Montrose deserves transparent, effective leadership that prioritizes community over personal or partisan gain.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

Rethinking Project 7's Expansion:

In the Uncompahgre Valley, water serves as both a lifeline and a limited resource. Project 7 Water Authority faces a pivotal decision. The authority, a cooperative serving over 50,000 residents in Montrose, Delta, Olathe, and surrounding areas, operates a treatment plant with a capacity of 27.6 million gallons per day (MGD). Current usage averages 5 MGD in winter and peaks at 15 MGD in summer, leaving ample headroom under the 27.6 MGD maximum. Yet, Project 7 pushes for a new Ridgway Water Treatment Plant at an estimated $180 million, adding just 6 MGD of capacity. This proposal raises critical questions about necessity, taxpayer burden, and viable alternatives like raw water diversion for irrigation.

Background on Project 7 and the Proposed Plant

Project 7 was formed in 1977 as a collaborative effort among seven entities to provide potable water. It draws from the Gunnison River via the historic Gunnison Tunnel. The existing plant, the largest on Colorado's Western Slope, treats water for domestic use while the region relies on separate irrigation supplies. Demand projections anticipate growth, with the authority citing risks like droughts, wildfires, and infrastructure failures to justify redundancy. By 2026, the new plant aims to enhance resiliency, serving a population expected to increase amid regional development. However, with current usage well below capacity, the push seems premature. Summer peaks are largely driven by outdoor needs, including irrigation for lawns and agriculture in Montrose, Delta, and Olathe.

Financial Implications for Taxpayers

The financial implications for taxpayers are staggering. The $180 million price tag includes construction, raw water conveyance, and operations, funded through a mix of grants, loans, and rate hikes. Project 7 has secured federal support, such as a $612,059 Bureau of Reclamation grant for pilot testing and a $39 million Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan invitation. Yet, ultimate costs will pass to ratepayers. A 100% wholesale rate increase could translate to 20-30% higher bills for households, exacerbating affordability issues in a region where median incomes lag state averages. This echoes broader Colorado water challenges, where demand could outpace supply by 2050, but local projections show Montrose's annual demands at about 4,500 acre-feet, or 45% of allocations.

Exploring Viable Alternatives

Why not explore alternatives before burdening taxpayers? Summer usage spikes by 10 MGD, much for irrigation. Diverting this to a secondary raw water system, filtered minimally for turbidity to prevent pipe clogs, could free up treated capacity without a new plant. The Uncompahgre Valley already uses Gunnison Tunnel water for agriculture, diverting 500,000-600,000 acre-feet annually. A dual system for non-potable uses, common in arid regions, would cost far less than $180 million and allow funds for upgrading the existing facility. Project 7's raw water sources from two points support this feasibility.

Some argue the new plant addresses vulnerabilities like single-source reliance, but data shows no past interruptions. Public sentiment reflects skepticism, with users questioning costs amid economic pressures. As Colorado's water plan emphasizes efficiency, Project 7 should prioritize conservation and alternatives over expansion.

Potential Hidden Agendas and Connections

Is this part of a larger plan thought up by Bill Bell? It is no secret that when Bill Bell was a rookie city manager here, he tried and failed to take over Project 7 water. The former power plant the city acquired has deep water rights attached to its deed. So, it begs the question, is there something more afoot here than meets the eye?

Or, is it possibly something even more sinister like GORP, the 730,000 acre federal land grab concocted by Senators Bennet (D-CO) and Hickenlooper (D-CO) in conjunction with Congressman Jeff Hurd (R-CD3) which would devastate Montrose's local economy?

We are simply asking the questions, are there ulterior motives here that are driving this push for this second plant? Or is it just another publicly funded entity feeling the need to spend our money? We do not seem to need it based on usage and even future usage trends.

Moving back to Montrose, I was absolutely shocked at the cost of water. When I compare rates of what others pay downstream in states who buy water from Colorado, their water bills are about 50-60% less. Why is it that we pay 2-3 times what they pay when we are supplying their water?

Why are we really looking at adding a seemingly senseless additional plant that produces 25% of the capacity of the current plant we have now? Nobody is answering this very important question. And just remember, there will be a need to update the current plant in the near future that will cost the ratepayers and taxpayers a pretty penny in and of itself.

We deserve a thorough cost-benefit analysis, not lip service. Redirecting irrigation to raw water could meet needs sustainably, saving millions. It is time to pause the $180 million project and invest in smarter solutions for the valley's future.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com).

The Montrose Republican Women's Club:

As Republican as Federal Express Is Federal



Montrose, a community where conservative principles like self-reliance, fiscal prudence, and unwavering party loyalty are etched into the very fabric of daily life, one might expect gatherings of Republicans to reinforce unity and shared values. Yet, on Friday, August 15, 2025, the Montrose Republican Women's Club hosted a boxed luncheon that did anything but. This event, ostensibly a casual midday affair to discuss local issues and foster camaraderie, instead became a flashpoint for controversy. It drew sharp rebukes from true-blue party loyalists who saw it as a blatant undermining of GOP cohesion. The attendee list was a veritable rogues' gallery of individuals who have, in various ways, turned their backs on the Republican Party. They prioritized personal agendas over collective strength. Far from bolstering the conservative cause, this luncheon highlighted a troubling divide within Montrose County's GOP ranks. It raised questions about where true allegiances lie and whether the club itself has strayed from its foundational mission.

Montrose County has long been a bastion of Republican dominance. Voters here consistently support candidates who champion limited government, Second Amendment rights, and traditional family values. The Republican Women's Club, part of the broader National Federation of Republican Women network, is meant to serve as a pillar of this community. It organizes events that educate, mobilize, and unite women in the party. Past luncheons, such as the one in May 2024 featuring a legislative recap by then Rep. Marc Catlin, have focused on substantive policy discussions. However, the August 15 event deviated sharply. It platformed figures whose histories of disloyalty and discord have alienated them from the party's core. This choice not only sparked immediate backlash but also amplified ongoing tensions. Those tensions particularly surround the contentious recall effort against County Commissioner Scott Mijares. In an era when national Republicans are grappling with internal fractures, local incidents like this underscore how division at the grassroots level can erode the party's foundation.

The Attendees: A Catalog of Disloyalty and Division

Let's delve into the attendees. Each is burdened with a record of actions that should give any dedicated Republican serious pause. At the forefront was Sue Hansen, the Montrose County Commissioner for District 2. She has served two terms after initially being appointed with strong GOP backing. Hansen's political journey began with Republican support that propelled her to victory in the 2022 primary. There she secured 100% of the vote in an uncontested race. Yet, in a move that stunned many, she quietly switched her affiliation to unaffiliated in early 2025. She did so without any public announcement or acknowledgment of the party's role in her success. This departure drew excoriating criticism from local Republicans, who accused her of ingratitude and secrecy. As one party member put it in a Montrose Press article, her actions represented a "betrayal" of the support that "first saw her appointed as a county commissioner, and then saw her elected to two terms." Hansen's presence at the luncheon, mingling with other controversial figures, only fueled perceptions that she has abandoned conservative principles for personal expediency. Her focus as commissioner on issues like growth management and healthcare, while commendable in some circles, has sometimes clashed with stricter fiscal conservatism. This further alienates purists.

Compounding the unease was Ray Langston, the disgraced former Chair of the Montrose Republican Central Committee. Langston's tenure was marred by misconduct that earned him the moniker "political cancer" within local circles. His record includes multiple by-law violations, violent outbursts at events that infringed on First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly, and a pattern of verbal assaults, particularly against women. These behaviors led to his overwhelming defeat in a February 2021 re-election bid, where he garnered only 8 out of 48 votes. Banned from party meetings as a result, Langston has since become a central figure in the divisive recall campaign against Commissioner Scott Mijares. He is one of the principals driving the effort. The irony here is palpable. The recall petition accuses Mijares of mistreatment toward Hansen. Yet the campaign has aligned itself with Langston, whose own history of mistreating women is well-documented. As highlighted in a recent post by the Colorado DOGE Report, this partnership raises serious questions about the recall's integrity. Even more strikingly, Hansen, the alleged victim in the Mijares controversy, has associated with Langston despite his false accusations against her husband. Langston's attendance at the luncheon not only legitimized his role in sowing discord but also signaled the club's willingness to overlook egregious behavior in favor of factional alliances.

Rounding out this trio of contentious guests was former State Senator Don Coram, a Montrose native whose political career has been defined by repeated breaks from GOP orthodoxy. Coram, who served in both the Colorado House and Senate, has been censured by no fewer than eight counties for his deviations. This includes a unanimous censure from one GOP central committee for actions deemed contrary to party principles. His transgressions include challenging incumbent Republicans in primaries, such as his 2022 bid against U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, and crossing party lines to endorse Democrats. Notably, Coram supported Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, in a high-profile race. He also advocated for legislation funding sex education programs that many conservatives view as clashing with traditional values. He has also penned op-eds backing Democratic positions and candidates. This further alienated him from the base. Banned from numerous party functions, Coram's invitation to the luncheon speaks volumes about the club's priorities. It suggests a tolerance for "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) that undermines the push for ideological purity. In a state where Republicans are fighting to maintain relevance amid shifting demographics, figures like Coram represent a dilution of conservative strength.

The Shadow of the Recall: Innuendos and Implications

The luncheon took an even darker turn with subtle comments and innuendos about the ongoing recall effort against Commissioner Scott Mijares, who assumed office in January 2025. Launched on July 7, 2025, by the Recall Scott Mijares Committee, the campaign accuses Mijares of violating transparency, fiscal responsibility, and public trust. Petitioners, including over 100 volunteers, gathered enough signatures in just 34 days to place the measure on the November 4 ballot. They cited issues like his role in the resignation of former County Manager Frank Rodriguez and alleged mistreatment of colleagues. Mijares has rebutted these claims as a "political stunt." He defended his actions during tense public meetings and emphasized his commitment to conservative governance.

At the luncheon, whispers about the recall, fueled by attendees like Langston and Hansen, highlighted the personal vendettas at play. Critics argue that the event provided a platform for these figures to advance their agenda. This further fractured party unity. As one X user noted, the recall is perceived by some as an attempt by the "progressive left" to overturn a duly elected conservative commissioner. Mijares' supporters like fellow Commissioner Sean Pond are rallying against it. This division comes at a precarious time for Montrose Republicans, who are navigating challenges like unfunded state mandates and federal land designations that threaten local industries such as ranching and mining.

Broader Ramifications: A Haven for Discord or a Call to Reclaim the Party?

Events like this luncheon do more harm than good to the Republican cause in Montrose County. By platforming individuals who have abandoned, betrayed, or been ousted from the party, the Montrose Republican Women's Club is sending a clear message. Their allegiance is not to the GOP's core principles of loyalty, fiscal responsibility, and unity. Instead, it appears to be a haven for those sowing discord and pursuing personal agendas. The club's history of community involvement, from parades at the Montrose County Fair to supporting local candidates, makes this deviation all the more disappointing. In a county where Republicans hold sway but face internal pressures exacerbated by national trends like the MAGA movement's emphasis on purity, this gathering risks alienating grassroots voters who demand accountability.

The reality is stark. The Republican Women's Club is about as Republican as Federal Express is associated with the Federal Government. It is a name without substance. True conservatives must demand better. They could do so perhaps by boycotting such events or pushing for leadership changes within the club. Reclaiming the party from these imposters is essential before more damage is done. This is especially true as the 2026 elections loom and the recall outcome could reshape local power dynamics. Montrose deserves leaders who embody unwavering conservatism, not those who flirt with defection. It's time for the silent majority to speak up, restore unity, and ensure that future luncheons celebrate, rather than sabotage, the GOP's enduring values.

The Mission Transcends

Beyond Personal Ambition

The Enduring Core of Our Republic

In the tapestry of American governance, the thread that binds us is not the fleeting presence of any leader, but the unyielding mission to preserve liberty through the Constitution. This sacred document, with its preamble declaring the intent to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," stands as the embodiment of our Republic's core values. It transcends individuals, cascading from federal to state and local levels, maintaining its form to protect freedom at every juncture. Liberty and freedom form the heart of our system, represented by the Constitution and preserved by the rule of law via elected representatives. These officials, whether county commissioners, city council members, state legislators, or U.S. Senators, share an equal purpose: to safeguard our liberties. They come and go, but the mission remains paramount.

Constitutional Architecture: Separation of Powers

To understand this, we must delve into the Constitution's architecture. The separation of powers, outlined in Articles I, II, and III, vests legislative authority in Congress, executive power in the President, and judicial power in the courts. This deliberate fragmentation ensures no branch, and thus no individual, dominates. As Madison articulated in Federalist No. 51, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." He further explained, "In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people." This structure acknowledges human fallibility, noting, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." It prioritizes the system over personal virtue.

Federalism: Power Division for Liberty's Sake

Federalism amplifies this protection. The 10th Amendment reserves undelegated powers to the states or the people, creating a balanced federation. In Federalist No. 39, Madison defined a republic as one "derived from the great body of the society," contrasting it with tyrannical rule by a few. He emphasized, "In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects." This division ensures liberty flows downward, empowering local officials as much as national ones in their spheres.

Historical Foundations: Insights from the Founders

Historically, the Founding Fathers reinforced this view. John Adams proclaimed, "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker." He cautioned, "But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever." Benjamin Franklin echoed, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." And, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Thomas Jefferson added, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." These sentiments underscore that liberty relies on constitutional fidelity, not individual saviors.

Judicial Independence: Hamilton's Perspective and Key Cases

The judiciary enforces this through the rule of law. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, asserted, "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void." He continued, "The power of the people is superior to both [judicial and legislative]; and that where the will of the legislature... stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter." This independence guards against "the effects of those ill humors... which the arts of designing men... sometimes disseminate among the people."

Supreme Court precedents vividly illustrate this. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court established judicial review, with Marshall stating, "If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case." Further, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." This ruling cemented the Constitution's supremacy.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Court curtailed executive overreach when President Truman seized steel mills without congressional approval. The majority held, "The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times." Justice Jackson's concurrence noted, "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb." Justice Douglas added, "The emergency did not create power; it merely marked an occasion when power should be exercised." These decisions affirm that personal authority yields to constitutional bounds.

Mitigating Factions: Lessons from Federalist No. 10

Madison's Federalist No. 10 addresses factions, a perennial threat to liberty. He argued, "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction." A republic, unlike a democracy, refines public views through representation: "The effect... is... to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens." Extending the sphere diversifies interests, making majority tyranny less likely: "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority... will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens." The federal structure confines factional flames: "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."

Representatives' Shared Purpose: From Local to National

This mission extends to all government levels. A local commissioner zoning land preserves property rights, echoing the 10th Amendment's reservation. A state legislator crafting education policy upholds equal protection, while a senator ratifies treaties to secure peace. None is lesser; all advance liberty. As the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI) binds judges to it as the "supreme Law of the Land," so too are all officials bound.

Additional Legal Precedents: Balancing Powers

Consider McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where the Court upheld federal banking power, affirming federalism's balance: states cannot tax federal instruments, as "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Myers v. United States (1926) clarified presidential removal powers but within constitutional limits, emphasizing executive subordination to law.

In recent times, Trump v. United States (2024) grappled with presidential immunity, reiterating that official acts are protected but underscoring accountability under the Constitution. These cases show the system's resilience.

Vigilance for Eternal Freedom

Ultimately, our Republic endures because the mission supersedes individuals. As Franklin warned of corruption necessitating masters, we must vigilantly uphold the Constitution. Representatives are stewards, not sovereigns. From town halls to Capitol Hill, the purpose is singular: preserve liberty. By focusing on this, we honor the Founders' vision, ensuring freedom's flame burns eternal.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Betrayed by the Board: Montrose Schools'
Illegal Spending and Radical Ties Exposed

In the tight-knit community of Montrose, where families trust their leaders to steward public funds responsibly, a shocking scandal has unfolded under Superintendent Dr. Carrie Stephenson's leadership. The Montrose County School District misused nearly $20,000 in taxpayer dollars to illegally promote a $200 million bond measure for a new high school in the 2024 election. This violation of Colorado campaign finance law not only wasted hard-earned money but also demonstrated a troubling lack of transparency and accountability from Dr. Stephenson, who oversaw partial fixes that failed to fully address the wrongdoing.

Colorado statute is unambiguous on this matter. Section 1-45-117(1)(a)(I), C.R.S. (2024), bars political subdivisions, including school districts, from using any public money to urge voters to support or oppose referred measures. While neutral factual summaries with balanced arguments are allowed under § 1-45-117(1)(b)(I), the district crossed the line into advocacy. After referring the bond to voters, which they rejected, the district created a website section with positive spins on the measure, linked to a promotional video by a professional vendor, and distributed over 16,000 brochures urging approval. These materials included a superficial list of pros and cons, but overwhelmingly cast the bond favorably, aiming to sway public opinion.

The district's spending totaled $18,913: $14,272 on brochures and $4,641 on the video. When resident George Kerber filed a complaint on September 15, 2024, alleging improper advocacy on the district's website and Facebook page, Dr. Stephenson's response was inadequate. The video was removed from public view, and arguments were made more prominent online, but the brochures were already out, and webpages retained biased content. This evasive approach highlights Dr. Stephenson's failure to be forthright, prioritizing damage control over full compliance.

The Elections Division of the Colorado Secretary of State filed a formal complaint on May 12, 2025, under § 1-45-111.7, C.R.S., charging the district with a prohibited contribution and seeking penalties per 8 CCR 1505-6, Rule 23.4.3, and § 1-45-117(4), C.R.S. Rather than contesting in a hearing, the district settled out of court. A Notice of Dismissal was issued on June 26, 2025, noting a settlement agreement approved by the Deputy Secretary of State. The terms, including any financial penalties, remain undisclosed, leaving taxpayers guessing how much more was spent to resolve this self-inflicted issue. Dr. Stephenson, as the superintendent named in service documents alongside Public Information Officer Thomas Matthew Jenkins, must be held accountable for this breach and the secretive resolution.

Adding to the concern are radical influences on the school board. Alice Murphy, now District C Director, has affiliations with Indivisible, a far-left group criticized for communist leanings and ties to the Communist Party USA. Indivisible's Montrose/Ouray chapter has openly supported the recall of conservative county commissioner Scott Mijares, they also connect to figures like Governor Polis, who has shown contempt for the US Constitutional through his support of legislation like SB25-003. Polis was featured prominently in the 2014 documentary "The Rocky Mountain Heist," which exposes how a group of wealthy left wing politicians, including Polis, employed dubious strategies to shift Colorado far left through coordinated funding and tactics. Murphy's involvement with such a mindset raises alarms about ideological biases infiltrating our schools, where education should remain neutral and focused on students, not politics.

As of August 2025, this scandal lingers as a reminder of eroded trust. Dr. Stephenson's oversight allowed illegal spending and incomplete remedies, while board members like Murphy bring questionable associations. Montrose residents, who value integrity and fiscal prudence, deserve leaders who uphold the law without excuses. It is time to demand full disclosure on the settlement and scrutinize board influences to protect our children's future. Anything less betrays the community that funds these institutions.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

When Perception Crosses into Reality

The Scrutiny of Public Office

Originally published 8/19/2025

Political officials are not like everyday citizens. Their affiliations and associations face much heavier scrutiny than those of common folk, even in a small town. This holds true in Montrose, Colorado, where Mayor Pro-Tem Judy Anne Files was spotted casually on a Friday evening at the summer concert series sponsored by the City of Montrose. During the event, Judy Anne conversed with disgruntled former County Commissioner Roger Rash, who was gathering signatures for the "Recall Scott Mijares" campaign. This author called her out in an article as part of the effort because perception is reality.

Defense, Denial, and the Power of Perception

Her defenders, the recall supporters, rushed to her defense. She denied any involvement when confronted by citizens at the City Council Meeting on August 5. I personally have no issues with Judy Anne. We are personable and have shared many enjoyable conversations. However, perception is reality. As an elected official, Judy Anne, you should know better. When the public sees you at an event with a controversial situation that you choose to insert yourself into, assumptions will follow. You may not like it, but that is the reality.

The Core Issue: Assumptions and Accountability

The fact remains that voters there will see you and assume you support the effort, whether you do or not. That is the core issue. All the hubbub from defenders who called out my supposed "error" misses the point. Get a life. Files actions as an elected official, much like those of her county counterpart, sitting Commissioner Sue Hansen who posted on her own Facebook page in support of the recall, should trigger ethics charges immediately. They should be barred from public office according to Colorado Revised Statutes.

Unconscionable Behavior and Ethical Standards

This type of behavior is absolutely unconscionable and cannot be tolerated from our elected officials. The Colorado Code of Ethics, outlined in Title 24, Article 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, establishes clear standards to preserve public trust.

Public Trust and Fiduciary Duty (C.R.S. § 24-18-103)

For instance, C.R.S. § 24-18-103 declares that holding public office is a public trust and requires officials to act in ways that inspire confidence in government integrity. Engaging in activities that appear to undermine fellow elected officials, such as associating with recall efforts against them, can breach this fiduciary duty by eroding that trust.

Rules of Conduct for Public Officers (C.R.S. § 24-18-104)

Furthermore, C.R.S. § 24-18-104 sets rules of conduct for public officers and local government officials, prohibiting actions that could be seen as using one's position for improper influence or private political gain. Actively campaigning against another official's recall, or even giving the perception of support through public interactions or social media posts, risks violating these rules by prioritizing partisan agendas over impartial service.

Ethical Principles and Conflicts (C.R.S. § 24-18-105)

C.R.S. § 24-18-105 reinforces ethical principles, advising against official acts that could improperly influence duties or create conflicts. In the case of local officials like Files and Hansen, inserting themselves into divisive recall campaigns against peers directly affects the economic and political interests of their communities, potentially departing from faithful discharge of duties.

Rules for Local Government Officials (C.R.S. § 24-18-109)

Finally, C.R.S. § 24-18-109 specifically addresses rules for local government officials, where proof of certain acts constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, including performing official acts that benefit undertakings in which they have interests or accepting benefits that could sway impartiality. Supporting or appearing to support a recall against another elected official while in office can be viewed as such a breach, as it undermines the collaborative governance expected under the law.

Rising Above Disputes: A Call for Accountability

Elected leaders must rise above personal or factional disputes. In Montrose, these incidents highlight why strict adherence to Colorado's ethics statutes is essential. Violations like these demand accountability to restore faith in our institutions.

The real question is what are they hiding?

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution.

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

An Open Letter to

Montrose County Commissioner Sue Hansen

We find it very disturbing and unbelievable you have publicly aligned herself with the disgraced and former Montrose County GOP Party Chair in your respective and deceitful efforts to potentially remove your Commissioner colleague, Mr. Scott Mijares.

● Did you forget that you and your spouse voted along with 83% of the Party’s Central Committee in February 2021 that resulted in defeating the disgraced Chair from being re-elected?

● He was soundly defeated (only received 17% of the vote - all were/are part of the local Deep State) because of his misconduct and abusive behavior towards fellow Party members.

● Did you forget that your new alignment with the disgraced former Chair FALSELY accused your husband, and fortunately failed in his attempt to remove your spouse from his elected Party office?   Former disgraced Chair wanted and demanded your spouse to violate pre-Primary Neutrality By-Laws?  Your spouse rightly refused to comply with the then Chair’s illegal demands.

● Did you forget that it was your spouse who discovered that the disgraced former Chair stole a Congressional Candidate’s campaign literature just days prior to the Primary?

● Did you forget the disgraced individual as Chair refused to return the stolen merchandise after he was CAUGHT BY YOUR HUSBAND?   Did you forget your colleague and fellow Commissioner at that time, Keith Caddy, drove out to the Chair’s home to retrieve the stolen campaign literature?

● Did you forget that your spouse with a handful of other Party leaders met at Party’s HQ with the said Candidate and counted each literature piece to assure Caddy successfully retrieved all materials?

● Did you forget the disgraced individual as Chair failed to provide accountability for campaign cash donations?

● Did you forget the disgraced former Chair still has not submitted a final Financial Report after Four and Half Years?

● Did you forget about the disgraced former Chair’s verbal assault and abuse towards women and some men?  Did you forget his Secretary resigned because she could no longer take his abuse?

● Did you forget he violated a major By-Law that specifically stated (and still does) that the 2nd Vice Chair makes the selection to fill Central Committee vacancies and that the Chair/Executive Committee “Shall Ratify” the decision by the 2nd Vice Chair’s vacancy committee?  Did you forget your husband was the 2nd Vice Chair at that time?

● Did you forget the disgraced former Chair publicly yelled at a female guest speaker followed with his F-Bombs, because she mentioned having evidence (later provided to Sheriff’s office) directly linking the infamous Sex Survey (asking children as young as 10 years of age about “Anal Sex” and other perversions) to a State Senator’s sponsorship of the so-called Sex Education HB 19-1032?

● Did you forget the disgraced individual was also removed as “Candidate Support Chair” in 2022, because again he violated pre-Primary Neutrality By-Laws?

We know you did not forget, but overlooked or condoned, if not supported, the disgraced former Chair’s disruptive behavior in 2024 at the Caucus and violent outbursts at a number of Meet & Greet events and Candidate forums; all because both of you supported the opponent of Scott Mijares.   An opponent with multiple Federal Tax Liens among other issues over the competent and successful business owner, community investor who pays his taxes - Scott Mijares.

What were you and what are you afraid of that you would support Mijares opponent in the 2024 Primary (violating your own declared policy of neutrality) and further opposed Mijares even after he was elected by the people in November?   Apparently, you have lost your moral compass and the community is hurting because of your actions, unethical behavior, and desperate attempt to hold on to power at any cost.   Shame on You! 

So, Sue, do you really believe that shaking hands and kissing babies is going to cure all the shenanigans you have pulled here in Montrose County?  Do you really believe that the under handed, political moves that undermined the very constituents will go un-noticed and un-detected and covered over because you were shaking a few hands at the county fair? We think NOT!  We are going to do our very best to ensure that your misdeeds are exposed at every turn!

Maybe the recall should be against you?

Revelations of Fiscal Irresponsibility: How Montrose County's Former Commissioners Rushed a $500,000 School Purchase, Abandoned It,
and Pushed Through North Campus to Sidestep Incoming Scrutiny

In the quiet West End of Montrose County, Colorado, a seemingly straightforward decision to purchase an old school building in Naturita has unraveled into a textbook case of fiscal malfeasance and political maneuvering. A recently obtained transcript from a July 30, 2025, Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) work session reveals how former Commissioners Sue Hansen, Roger Rash, and Keith Caddy (now actively involved in efforts to recall current Commissioner Scott Mijares) rushed into buying the dilapidated structure without proper vetting. They then shelved the project to fast-track the controversial North Campus expansion, ensuring it was approved before the new board, including the skeptical Mijares, could intervene. This pattern of hasty decisions and deferred accountability is emblematic of deeper issues plaguing the previous administration, with new details emerging daily about their misdeeds.

The Rushed Purchase: A $500,000 Gamble on a "Bargain" Building

The story begins in early 2024, under the Hansen-Rash-Caddy board. Facing urgent pressure from mold issues in the West End sheriff's office, the commissioners seized on the opportunity to buy the former Naturita school from the local district for $500,000 (a price touted as a steal at roughly $22 per square foot for the 20,300-square-foot facility). The intent was noble: consolidate county services like the sheriff's office, clerk and recorder, courts, and health and human services into one community hub, avoiding the higher costs of a new build in Nucla.

However, the transcript paints a picture of reckless haste. No comprehensive due diligence was conducted prior to the purchase. Amy Lalone, an architect with Wold Architects and Engineers (the firm contracted for related designs), confirmed that her team's building assessment (covering structural, mechanical, electrical, and code compliance issues) was performed during the county's consideration phase but not used to solicit a formal recommendation on whether to proceed. When pressed by current Commissioner Mijares (identified as Speaker 1 in the transcript) on whether the county consulted Wold about the building's condition before buying, Lalone clarified: "We completed the assessment and we didn't... ask for your recommendation." To be clear, Wold is not currently under contract with the county as their contract ended on June 30, 2025 and the BOCC has not yet taken action to renew the contract as of the date of August 4, 2025.

Finance Director Cindy Dunlap echoed this, noting her office's peripheral understanding was that the purchase would involve minor "cosmetic renovations" like paint and carpet (not the multimillion-dollar deferred maintenance nightmare it turned out to be). "There definitely wasn't an understanding from the finance department that we're really looking at a building that had all this deferred maintenance," Dunlap stated. The assessment revealed severe deficiencies: non-functional HVAC systems (requiring three-phase power upgrades), outdated electrical panels, non-compliant fire alarms, ADA violations, and potential asbestos abatement. Initial estimates from FCI Constructors pegged bare-bones fixes at $4.6 million, with full renovations potentially pushing costs to $8 million or more, a figure that is likely to exceed the original $9.4 million estimate for a new Nucla facility.

Commissioner Sue Hansen defended the urgency, citing the sheriff's mold crisis: "Had we waited for a brand new building, we wouldn't have had a place to move the sheriff into immediately." Yet, this "sense of pressure" led to a purchase without geotechnical studies, full drawings (only partial 1996 addition plans were available), or a long-term capital plan. The result? A building with "good bones" but riddled with problems, now straining the county's budget as departments like the sheriff's office limp along with window AC units and makeshift evidence storage.

Abandoning the West End: Pivoting to North Campus to Preempt the New Board

The transcript exposes how the previous board abandoned the West End project mid-stream to prioritize the North Campus  (a $24+ million endeavor that had drawn criticism for its scale and cost). In October 2023, with designs for the Nucla new build 40% complete (costing the county $287,570 in fees to Wold), the Hansen-Rash-Caddy board halted work, instructing Wold to "focus just on North Campus so that we can get that project out for bid." This pause, per Lalone, was to redirect resources, but it conveniently aligned with the upcoming January 2025 board transition.

Incoming Commissioner Mijares had publicly expressed skepticism about North Campus during his campaign, viewing it as an overreach amid tight budgets. By rushing North Campus approvals in the lame-duck period (finalized just before the new board convened), the previous commissioners ensured the project was locked in, preventing Mijares and others from voting it down. Facilities Director Jennifer Murray confirmed the timeline: "In the fall of 2024... the county came to us and said we would like Wold to really focus just on North Campus... and let's slow down a little bit on the West End."

This either/or dilemma (West End vs. North Campus) was ignored, as Dunlap noted: "We choose projects, not do all the projects." Yet, the pivot left West End in limbo, with the school purchase becoming an afterthought. Current discussions reveal a county now grappling with phased renovations amid budget cuts, as departments like the clerk's office endure "computer lame" outages from unreliable San Miguel Power and makeshift voting setups in libraries.

The Recall Connection: Misdeeds Coming to Light

The former commissioners' actions on West End and North Campus are part of a broader pattern of fiscal irresponsibility, fueling their push to recall Mijares (who has been vocal in scrutinizing these decisions). Hansen, Rash, and Caddy are actively working with a recall committee, but as the transcript suggests, their motivations may stem from fear of exposure. Mijares' questions during the session (probing the lack of vetting, budget awareness, and contract details) highlight the accountability the previous board sought to evade.

This isn't isolated. Other revelations include:

• CRS Violations in Public Health Director Ahmed's Appointment: The previous board bypassed Colorado Revised Statutes in appointing a key official, raising questions of procedural impropriety.

• Ignoring the Either/Or on Courthouse/North Campus: Despite warnings, the board pursued both major projects without a funded plan, echoing the West End fiasco.

As Dunlap warned, "We really just don't have any long-range capital plan... this project is significant." With budgets "staggering" and departments facing cuts, these "shallow-end transgressions" hint at deeper issues. Imagine what's lurking beneath: unchecked contracts, ignored assessments, and political gamesmanship at taxpayer expense.

A Call for Accountability

Montrose County residents deserve transparency. The Hansen-Rash-Caddy era's rush jobs have left a fiscal mess, with West End services in disarray and North Campus as a fait accompli. As the new board, including Mijares, navigates these revelations, one thing is clear: the recall effort against him may be less about governance and more about silencing scrutiny. Voters should demand audits, a robust capital plan, and an end to the cycle of abandonment and haste. The deeds of the previous board are coming to light, day by day, revelation by revelation.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Montrose Leaders: Fulfill Your Duty and Address the Code Enforcement Crisis

Mayor David Frank, Members of the City Council, and City Manager Bill Bell,

As public servants entrusted with the well-being of Montrose, you have the fundamental duty to serve the residents who elected or appointed you. This means listening to their concerns, enforcing city codes fairly, and ensuring adequate resources for essential services. Yet, the ongoing saga of inadequate code enforcement staffing, highlighted in resident Lynn Stockton's persistent emails, reveals a troubling pattern of inaction and dismissal. It is time for you to act decisively, not as distant administrators, but as accountable leaders committed to the public good.

Lynn Stockton, a third-generation Coloradan and 10-year Montrose resident, has repeatedly sounded the alarm on this issue. In her July 14, 2025, email to a local organization, she detailed her direct conversations with City Manager Bill Bell and Police Patrol Cammander Tim Cox from the previous year. Those discussions aimed to resolve the chronic understaffing in code enforcement, where the city lacked even a single officer on payroll until mid-year. Stockton proposed alternatives and trusted Bell's assurance that the problem would be fixed for 2025. Instead, she learned from the newly hired officer in March that this individual remains the sole enforcer for the entire city, with no raise or additional support. Stockton rightly calls this situation "obscene" and "beyond stupid," given Montrose's growth.

Montrose is no longer a small town immune to the demands of expansion. With a projected population of nearly 22,000 in 2025, the city spans 18.5 square miles and faces increasing pressures from development, tourism, and everyday urban challenges. One code enforcement officer cannot possibly handle weeds, junk accumulation, snow removal, signage violations, and other nuisances across such an area. This understaffing leads to delayed responses, inconsistent enforcement, and a perception of favoritism, as Stockton recounts from her own successful fight against the "old boy system" years ago. In that case, she won a court-ordered cleanup that cost the city thousands in resources due to poor oversight. How many similar oversights occur now because of insufficient personnel?

Your responses, or lack thereof, exacerbate the frustration. On July 23, 2025, Stockton emailed Mayor Frank directly, referencing a prior letter and requesting a face-to-face meeting to discuss code enforcement and public perception. She invoked the Citizen Interactive Forum, which she helped establish under former Mayor Barbara Bynum, noting the council's stated appreciation for resident outreach. Yet, Frank's reply on July 28 came only after multiple follow-ups, including phone calls. In it, he deferred responsibility, stating that code enforcement followed policies, that the council does not handle hiring or staffing, and that management has the issue "in control." This brush-off ignores the core complaint: the system itself is broken if it relies on a single officer.

As public servants, your job is not to deflect but to act. Mayor Frank, you lead the council in setting priorities and budgets that directly influence staffing decisions. City Council members, you approve the frameworks under which departments operate, including the police department's code compliance division. City Manager Bell, you oversee daily operations and hiring, as evidenced by your prior commitments to Stockton. Serving the public means addressing systemic flaws, not hiding behind procedural excuses. Transparency demands more than lip service in forums; it requires tangible changes, like increasing the code enforcement team to at least two or three officers to match the city's size and needs.

This inaction fosters apathy among residents, as Stockton notes, and erodes trust in local government. Recent examples elsewhere in western Colorado, such as enforcement concerns in neighboring counties, underscore the risks of neglect. In Montrose, code violations can snowball into larger problems: blighted properties deter investment, safety hazards endanger families, and uneven enforcement breeds resentment. Stockton's experience winning a case against a well-known citizen shows that enforcement works when pursued, but it should not require individual battles. Your duty is to prevent such struggles by building a robust system.

Moreover, the city's own resources hint at the problem. Job postings for code compliance officers suggest ongoing recruitment efforts, yet Stockton's information indicates persistent shortfalls. If the salary of around $52,000 annually is insufficient to attract and retain staff, adjust it. If workload overwhelms one person, reallocate budgets from less critical areas. Montrose's 2025 infrastructure projects, totaling over $9 million, demonstrate your capacity to invest when motivated. Why not prioritize code enforcement, a frontline service that directly impacts daily life?

Public servants must embody accountability. Stockton's call for a council recall, while challenging, reflects deep disillusionment. Avoid forcing residents to such extremes by acting now. Hire additional officers, provide training and raises as needed, and establish regular public updates on enforcement metrics. Schedule the face-to-face meeting Stockton requested to rebuild dialogue. These steps are not optional; they are your obligation to serve.

Montrose deserves better. As a growing community, it needs leaders who enforce codes equitably and respond to citizens with respect. Mayor Frank, City Council, and Manager Bell: step up, fulfill your roles, and resolve this crisis before it defines your legacies. The public is watching, and apathy will not shield you from accountability.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is the father of five and grandfather of three, United States Air Force Veteran, International Recording Artist, passionate about the United States of America and the founders Genius of the Constitution and Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report (coDOGEreport.com). Montrose Leaders: Fulfill Your Duty and Address the Code Enforcement Crisis

Recall Campaign Sinks to New Lows:

Preying on the Vulnerable in Montrose County



A Toxic Undercurrent in Community Spirit

Montrose County, nestled in the picturesque landscapes of western Colorado, has long been a beacon of small-town camaraderie and mutual support. Residents here take pride in their tight-knit communities, where neighbors lend a hand during harsh winters, volunteer at local events, and rally together for causes that matter most. Local governance has traditionally centered on practical, everyday concerns such as improving health care access, maintaining roads and infrastructure, and fostering economic stability amid the region's agricultural and tourism-driven economy. However, in recent months, a disturbing shift has occurred. A toxic undercurrent has seeped into the fabric of this unity, eroding the trust and goodwill that define Montrose. At the heart of this discord is the "Recall Commissioner Scott Mijares" committee. This group, which claims to be motivated by issues of transparency and fiscal responsibility, has instead transformed into a predatory operation that deliberately targets the county's most vulnerable residents. This goes beyond typical political maneuvering. It represents exploitation disguised as grassroots activism, and it threatens to fracture the very community spirit that Montrose holds dear.

The Health Fair Outrage

The most recent and egregious example of this troubling behavior took place at the annual Montrose Health Fair, held in early August 2025. This event, organized by local health organizations and county services, serves as a vital lifeline for many families. It offers free medical screenings, educational workshops on managing chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease, and connections to resources for mental health support and nutritional guidance. Attendees often include low-income families, elderly individuals on fixed incomes, and those grappling with serious medical hardships. They arrive seeking solace, information, and practical help, not political entanglements. Yet, amid the booths offering blood pressure checks, flu vaccinations, and consultations with health professionals, recall petitioners set up shop. These volunteers, who present themselves as dedicated community activists working for the greater good, aggressively approached people in lines and waiting areas. They thrust petitions into hands, launching into impassioned speeches about alleged misconduct, often ignoring obvious signs of disinterest, discomfort, or outright distress.

One particularly poignant account came from a witness who observed a young mother navigating the fair with two toddlers in tow. She was there to inquire about affordable pediatric care options and perhaps secure some free vaccinations for her children. Instead, she found herself cornered by a persistent volunteer who blocked her path and refused to back down, even as the mother politely declined. "They don't want anything to do with what you're selling," the mother reportedly snapped, her voice laced with frustration as she tried to shield her children from the intrusion. This sentiment resonated with numerous other attendees. Elderly participants, some using walkers or canes, reported feeling overwhelmed by the high-pressure tactics. One senior citizen, who preferred to remain anonymous, shared that he was approached while waiting for a hearing aid consultation. He felt pressured to sign just to make the solicitor leave, highlighting how such encounters can exploit momentary vulnerabilities. These stories paint a picture of an event meant for healing and support being hijacked for political gain, turning a space of compassion into one of coercion.

The Recall Effort's Pattern

This incident at the health fair is not an anomaly. It fits into a broader pattern established by the recall effort, which officially began in July 2025 when organizers submitted their petition to the Montrose County Clerk and Recorder. The campaign is spearheaded by a bipartisan coalition that includes notable figures such as former county officials Phoebe Benziger and Ray Langston. These leaders have positioned themselves as watchdogs, accusing Commissioner Scott Mijares of a series of governance failures. Specifically, they claim he violated Colorado's Open Meetings Law by conducting closed-door discussions that excluded public input. They also point to his role in the forced resignation of the county manager and attorney, which they argue led to excessive severance packages and legal fees amounting to more than half a million dollars in taxpayer money. Additional grievances include his mishandling of the public health director position, where they allege he created a toxic work environment that drove key staff away. Furthermore, the committee criticizes Mijares for interfering in critical infrastructure projects, such as the development of the North Campus facility, which is intended to expand county services like emergency response and administrative offices.

To gather the required signatures, approximately 25 percent of the voters from the most recent election, the committee has employed a multi-pronged strategy. Volunteers are stationed at various public locations throughout the county, from grocery stores to community centers. They have also launched email campaigns targeting registered voters and conducted door-to-door canvassing in neighborhoods. While these methods are standard in political organizing, the choice to infiltrate a health fair elevates the approach to a new level of insensitivity. Reports from residents indicate that similar aggressive tactics have been used at other events, such as farmers' markets and senior citizen gatherings, where people are less likely to be prepared for political solicitation. This pattern suggests a deliberate strategy to catch individuals off guard, maximizing signature collection at the expense of ethical considerations.

Examining the Grievances

Are these grievances against Commissioner Mijares entirely without merit? Mijares was elected in 2024 amid widespread calls for reform in county administration. He campaigned on promises to challenge entrenched bureaucratic interests and prioritize efficiency in government spending. Since taking office, he has indeed sparked controversy through bold decisions, such as restructuring departments to cut redundancies and advocating for stricter oversight of public funds. Supporters, including the Montrose County Republican Party and various local business leaders, portray him as a principled figure who is unafraid to confront outdated practices. They argue that the resignations of the county manager and attorney were necessary steps to address inefficiencies and that the associated costs, while significant, will yield long-term savings. Mijares himself has defended his actions, stating in public statements that his interventions in projects like the North Campus were aimed at ensuring accountability and preventing cost overruns.

However, critics maintain that his methods have fostered division rather than progress. The recall petition lists specific instances of alleged misconduct, but upon closer scrutiny, some claims appear exaggerated or selectively presented. For example, the Open Meetings Law violations are based on interpretations of meeting protocols that Mijares' team disputes as minor procedural oversights rather than intentional secrecy. The "toxic workplace" narrative stems from anonymous complaints, which supporters dismiss as resistance from those opposed to change. This back-and-forth underscores the polarized nature of the debate, where facts are often filtered through partisan lenses. What remains clear is that while legitimate questions about Mijares' leadership exist, the recall committee's response has amplified these issues in ways that prioritize sensationalism over substantive dialogue.

Crossing Ethical Lines

The true problem lies not in the grievances themselves but in the methods employed to advance the recall. By targeting attendees at the health fair, the committee preys on individuals who are already burdened by pressing concerns. Many of these people face mounting medical bills, navigate complex insurance systems, or manage family members with chronic health issues. Their focus is on immediate survival and well-being, not on dissecting local political scandals. Approaching them in such a setting exploits their vulnerability, turning a moment of need into an opportunity for political leverage. These are not engaged voters attending a town hall meeting or debate; they are ordinary residents seeking essential services, often in states of physical or emotional fatigue.

Such tactics mirror broader criticisms of recall efforts across the United States. In states like California and Wisconsin, similar campaigns have faced backlash for aggressive petitioning that borders on harassment, including following people to their cars or repeatedly calling homes. In Montrose, the health fair incident feels especially callous, akin to predatory sales pitches at senior centers or charity galas, where high-pressure techniques overwhelm those least equipped to resist. Volunteers, trained to collect signatures efficiently, may view these interactions as necessary, but they overlook the human cost. The result is a erosion of trust, where community events become battlegrounds rather than safe havens.

Undermining Legitimacy

This predatory approach ultimately undermines the recall campaign's legitimacy. If the issues of transparency violations, fiscal waste, and workplace toxicity are as compelling as claimed, why not pursue them through more honorable means? Open forums, televised debates, or in-depth media coverage could allow for informed public discourse. Instead, the committee has been accused of stifling dissent in ways that echo their own criticisms of Mijares. During recent county meetings, public comment periods were reportedly shortened, leaving residents feeling marginalized and unheard. In response, Mijares has launched his own website, where he encourages those who signed the petition under duress to withdraw their names. He also provides counterarguments, labeling the committee's claims as misinformation designed to mislead.

This tit-for-tat dynamic has created a cycle of accusation and defense, further polarizing the community. Residents who might otherwise engage thoughtfully are turned off by the theatrics, questioning whether the recall is driven by genuine concern or personal vendettas. The committee's tactics suggest a desperation that weakens their moral standing, making it harder for even sympathetic observers to fully endorse their cause.

Democracy or Distraction?

Proponents of the recall might counter that such efforts are fundamental democratic tools, designed to hold elected officials accountable between elections. In Colorado, recalls require a threshold of signatures to trigger a special election, potentially slated for November 2025 in this case. This mechanism empowers citizens to address perceived failures promptly. However, true democracy relies on integrity and fairness, not on ambushing unsuspecting individuals. Montrose County faces pressing challenges that demand unified attention: recovering from recent wildfires that devastated homes and landscapes, addressing budget shortfalls exacerbated by inflation, and expanding health access in rural areas. Amid the recall drama, positive steps like the new requirement for separate accounting of public safety sales tax funds demonstrate that governance can persist. Yet, the ongoing circus risks distracting from these priorities, siphoning energy into division rather than solutions.

A Call for Compassion Over Coercion

In the end, this recall campaign threatens to deepen existing divisions in a community already strained by rapid population growth, economic pressures from rising living costs, and the lingering effects of the pandemic. Voters chose Mijares to introduce change and disrupt the status quo. If he is indeed falling short, the regular election cycle provides an opportunity for accountability without resorting to underhanded signature hunts at vulnerable venues like health fairs.

To the recall committee: If your cause is truly just, persuade through facts, evidence, and respectful engagement. Win hearts by building consensus, not by exploiting the less fortunate. Montrose residents, remain vigilant. Protect your neighbors from aggressive solicitors, question motives behind petitions, and insist on politics that elevates rather than exploits. The strength of our county has always been rooted in compassion, collaboration, and a shared commitment to one another's well-being. Let us preserve that legacy by choosing unity over coercion, ensuring that our community spirit endures for generations to come.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

HYPOCRISY EXPOSED:

The Recall Campaign Against

Montrose County Commissioner Scott Mijares

The ongoing recall campaign targeting duly elected Montrose County Commissioner Scott Mijares represents a stark display of hypocrisy, built on half-truths and baseless accusations. This effort, launched in July 2025, seeks to undermine a commissioner who has consistently championed transparency and accountability, while conveniently ignoring deeper issues of misconduct among former leaders.

1. Claiming to "Save Our Democracy" While Undermining Voter Will

The recall organizers proclaim they are "saving our democracy," yet their actions directly contradict this by attempting to overturn the clear mandate of voters who elected Mijares in November 2024. This is not safeguarding democracy; it's outright rejecting the people's choice. Moreover, the United States is not a pure democracy but a constitutional republic, where "saving our democracy" often serves as rhetoric that threatens republican principles, individual freedoms, and governmental openness.

2. Professing Transparency While Opposing a Transparency Advocate

The recall touts a commitment to transparency, but this rings hollow given Mijares' longstanding advocacy for open government during his campaign and tenure. A successful recall would only serve to obscure or suppress investigations into alleged crimes by former Commissioners Sue Hansen, Roger Rash, and Keith Caddy, who are accused of condoning (or even approving) the illegal transfer of over $100 million in Public Safety Sales Tax (PSST) funds, originally intended for essential public safety operations since its voter approval in 2007.

3. Lack of Transparency in the Recall Group Itself

Far from being transparent, the recall organizers have failed to disclose to petition signers and the public that their leadership includes Ray Langston, a disgraced former GOP party chair with a troubling record. Langston's history involves verbal assaults against women, lack of accountability for campaign donations, and a failure to submit his final financial report for December 2020 (now over four and a half years overdue). This individual is a key figure in the recall team, raising serious questions about their integrity and motives.

4. Questioning Mijares' Fitness Based on Outdated Claims

The recall cites a civil fine imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Mijares over 25 years ago (from a 1996-1998 settlement related to alleged kickbacks) as evidence of unfitness for office. This same issue was raised by supporters of Mijares' primary opponent, Louis Stark, during the 2024 election cycle. Ironically, the recall ignores Stark's own unresolved issues: multiple federal tax liens dating back to the early 2000s, which remain unsettled to this day. Prioritizing an ancient civil matter over ongoing financial delinquencies exemplifies selective outrage.

5. Undermining Transparency Through Rushed Decisions

The recall group's purported support for transparency is further contradicted by their backing of hasty actions by outgoing commissioners, including Hansen, to approve the multi-million-dollar North Campus project and hire a new county manager. These decisions were pushed through rather than deferred to the incoming board, potentially locking in commitments that evade proper scrutiny and accountability.

This recall campaign is a blatant exercise in hypocrisy, designed primarily to shield alleged crimes and unethical behavior by Hansen, Rash, and Caddy from further exposure. The major players orchestrating the recall, including Langston, warrant investigation themselves (and potentially indictment) as accomplices in supporting the alleged misuse of over $100 million in taxpayer-funded PSST resources.

Notably, Commissioner Sue Hansen remains aligned with this disgraced figure, despite his past false accusations against her spouse, highlighting the tangled web of personal and political motivations at play.

Unethical Conduct at Cerise Park:
Montrose Deserves Transparency and Integrity

In the heart of Montrose, at Cerise Park during the Summer Music Series, a troubling scene unfolded. City council members were spotted soliciting signatures for a petition to recall an elected official. This event, funded by taxpayer dollars through the city's General Fund, Retail Sales Enhancement Fund, and Tourism Promotion Fund, should be a place for community enjoyment, not political maneuvering. Yet, there they were, turning a public gathering into a platform for personal agendas. This raises serious questions about ethics and the proper use of public resources.

I am particularly outraged by the actions of Judy Ann Files, Mayor Pro Tem and At-Large Council Member. She was actively asking attendees to sign the recall petition against County Commissioner Scott Mijares. Files voted to authorize funding for the Montrose Summer Music Series, which pays former City Councilor and Mayor David Bowman's company, Blue Sky Music, to manage the events. Her presence as a petitioner at this venue represents a blatant conflict of interest. How can an elected official who approved public funding for an event then exploit it for a partisan recall effort? This behavior crosses ethical lines and undermines public trust.

At the other end of the park, during the Friday night concert, former County Commissioner Roger Rash was also involved in the petition drive. Rash even appeared at my mother's door recently, pressing for her signature for this very same recall. This aggressive tactic feels invasive and desperate. Rash, along with former Commissioner Keith Caddy and current Commissioner Sue Hansen, seem united in their push to remove Mijares. What does this coalition reveal? It suggests a concerted effort by entrenched political figures to silence a voice exposing uncomfortable truths.

The recall petition against Mijares, filed by the Recall Scott Mijares Committee in July 2025, stems from his decisions as commission chair, including accepting the resignations of the county manager and attorney. Mijares has labeled the effort a "political stunt," and critics argue it lacks substance beyond personal vendettas. Yet, supporters urge signing the petition, claiming it addresses leadership failures. The publisher of the Montrose Daily Press has questioned the recall's motives, pointing to the fallout from forced staff changes under Mijares and Vice Chair Sean Pond, which led to further resignations and instability. This turmoil hints at deeper issues in county governance that Mijares is bringing to light.

Scott Mijares may not be a slick politician. He never pretended to be. But he is genuine and committed to honesty. As chair, he has pushed for accountability, uncovering layers of mismanagement that previous leaders preferred to keep hidden. The opposition from Files, Rash, Caddy, and Hansen tells a story: they fear exposure. Hansen, who opposed accepting the key resignations, aligns with those resisting change. Files, by petitioning at a city-funded event she helped finance, appears complicit in maintaining the status quo. This is just the beginning; months of reporting on city and county malfeasance reveal a pattern of self-serving decisions that prioritize insiders over residents.

Why does Montrose tolerate this cycle? We keep electing and re-electing the same individuals who fail to address pressing issues like housing affordability, infrastructure decay, and transparent governance. They sell us short, then attack those who dare to challenge the system. Mijares represents a break from that treadmill. His efforts to root out corruption, though messy, are essential for progress.

It's time to wake up, Montrose. You deserve leaders who prioritize ethics over expediency, transparency over cover-ups, and community needs over political games. Reject the recall tactics at public events. Demand accountability from Files and her allies. Support honest voices like Mijares who fight for real change. Our city and county can thrive, but only if we stop recycling the same flawed figures and insist on better. The future of Montrose depends on it.

Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Michael is a United States Air Force Veteran, father of five and grandfather of three, passionate about this country and the Constitution. 

Editor-in-Chief, Colorado DOGE Report.

Who is truly behind the recall effort of Commissioner Scott Mijares?

Is it a truly “bi-partisan” effort or a “Deep-State” plot to keep Colorado moving Blue?

by Michael J Badagliacco, "MJB"

Editor-In-Chief, coDOGEreport

Montrose County, Colorado, a stronghold of conservative values and often considered the state's last truly "Red County," faces a divisive recall effort against Commissioner Scott Mijares, launched on July 7, 2025, by the "Recall Scott Mijares Committee." Led by Jim Haugsness and Stephanie Williams, supported by Phoebe Benziger, Ellen Angeles, Linda Gann, former Montrose County Republican Chair Ray Langston, and groups like "NoKings" and "HandsOff," along with media allies such as the Montrose Daily Press's Dennis Anderson, who consistently portrays Mijares unfavorably, and KJCT in Grand Junction, which distorted a story to the point of near journalistic malpractice, the campaign claims to be non-partisan. In reality, the recall is a politically motivated attack by far left activists and their allies to undermine Montrose's conservative foundation, echoing past efforts to reshape local governance and schools. This article outlines the recall's timeline, debunks its accusations, exposes the troubling history of figures like Ray Langston and Don Coram, and urges residents to support Mijares to preserve fiscal responsibility and community values.

The Ties That Bind

The conflict's origins trace to 2020, when Ray Langston, then Montrose County Republican Chair, attempted to undermine the Republican candidate for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District. His misconduct led to his overwhelming defeat in the February 2021 re-election bid, securing only 8 of 48 votes. Langston further tarnished his reputation by not opposing HB 19-1032, a Democrat-backed sex education bill co-sponsored by Don Coram, the sole Republican supporter. This legislation introduced a controversial survey in Montrose schools, probing children as young as 10 about sexual acts, including "anal sex."

In 2021, Coram opposed four conservative school board candidates, enabling the election of a board that, by 2023, enacted a dress code policy barring staff from addressing students' attire based on gender. This led to incidents such as staff being unable to challenge a male student wearing a girls' sports bra, fueling outrage over far left policies eroding traditional standards. Coram's support for SB 21-067, misleadingly titled "Strengthening Civics Education," further advanced this agenda by mandating teachings on diverse sexual lifestyles to young students, raising concerns about undermining Montrose's values. These actions reflect a coordinated effort to sow division between youth and established citizens, prioritizing ideological agendas over guiding children with time-tested wisdom, a tactic often associated with far left strategies.

Mijares Elected with Overwhelming Support

In November 2024, Scott Mijares was elected County Commissioner for District 1, campaigning on transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. Opposition from far left groups emerged immediately, targeting his conservative platform. On December 18, 2024, the outgoing board committed $25 million to the North Campus project, exhausting capital improvement funds and requiring an additional $10 million in debt. Mijares, not yet sworn in, later proposed pausing the project for review, but the board rejected his motion.

In April 2025, County Manager Frank Rodriguez and County Attorney Marti Whitmore resigned. The Montrose Daily Press, aligned with recall supporters, labeled these resignations as "forced" by Mijares, citing "cultural differences," despite both Mijares and Rodriguez being Hispanic. Mijares clarified that Rodriguez resigned voluntarily, stating, "You'll have it by the end of the day," after previously expressing intent to quit. Whitmore, whose legally questionable advice violated Colorado Revised Statutes, offered her resignation multiple times to Mijares and Commissioner Sean Pond, expressing relief at leaving a job she disliked.

On July 7, 2025, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in a 2-1 vote, rejected county manager finalist Bradley Mitchell, with Mijares voting in favor, but Commissioners Sue Hansen and Sean Pond voting against due to salary concerns. Hours later, interim manager Leslie Quon resigned as interim County Manager but retained her position as County HR Director, citing a hostile work environment attributed to Mijares, a claim that appears inconsistent given her decision to stay in another role. That same day, the "Recall Scott Mijares Committee" filed notice with the Montrose County Clerk and Recorder, alleging Mijares violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law, wasted taxpayer dollars, mishandled the North Campus project, demoted the Public Health Director, and created a toxic work environment.

Debunking the Recall's Allegations

The recall's accusations are misleading and lack evidence, misrepresenting Mijares's commitment to conservative principles.

Violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law: This claim is baseless. Rodriguez offered his resignation voluntarily, never formally accepted by the BOCC per his contract. Whitmore independently offered her resignation to Mijares and Pond without coercion. No decisions were made outside public meetings, ensuring compliance with the law.

Wasted Taxpayer Dollars: The recall's claim of $500,000 in severance and legal fees is unsubstantiated. Severance payments to Rodriguez ($86,746.50) and Whitmore ($90,648.50) equaled six months of their salaries, as mandated by their contracts and approved by the BOCC. No additional funds were spent on backfilling or excessive legal fees, reflecting Mijares's focus on fiscal responsibility. Although $10,000 was allocated for outside counsel, the funds were never spent, as it was unnecessary.

North Campus Project: The outgoing board's $25 million commitment to the North Campus project, requiring $10 million in debt, was made before Mijares took office. His proposal to pause the project for the new board to assess its budgetary impact was rejected, and no breach of contract occurred, demonstrating his commitment to prudent financial oversight.

Public Health Director: The initial selection of the Public Health Director violated Colorado Revised Statute 25-1-508, which requires the County Board of Health, not the County Board of Commissioners, to appoint the director. As BOCC Chairman, Mijares convened the Board of Health to follow a lawful selection process, reviewing candidates and appointing the director. No demotion occurred, as the position was not legally filled, showcasing adherence to legal standards.

Toxic Work Environment: This vague accusation lacks evidence. Mijares has prioritized transparency and accountability, addressing inefficiencies such as Whitmore's questionable legal advice and Rodriguez's lack of qualifications. His leadership aims to restore community trust, not disrupt it.

A Far Left Agenda Exposed

Despite its non-partisan billing, the recall reflects a clear ideological divide. Langston's 2020 opposition to conservative candidates, his 2021 election loss, and his disruptive outburst against a speaker exposing Coram's support for HB 19-1032 and SB 21-067 reveal a pattern of aligning with far left agendas. These bills, backed by Coram, introduced controversial sex education and diverse lifestyle teachings to young students, undermining Montrose's traditional values. Groups like "NoKings" and "HandsOff," known for importing out-of-town activists, align with this agenda, seeking to impose urban, far left ideologies on Montrose. The Montrose Daily Press, under publisher Dennis Anderson, fuels this narrative by amplifying unverified claims and misrepresenting Mijares's role in the failed county manager hire, ignoring the 2-1 vote where Hansen and Pond held the majority.

This pattern of opposition threatens Montrose's conservative identity. The recall mirrors earlier efforts to undermine conservative leadership, using sensationalist reporting to discredit Mijares while sidelining his perspective. The lack of substantive evidence for the $500,000 cost claim and the misrepresentation of resignations as "forced" reveal a coordinated effort to destabilize conservative governance.

A Call to Action

Montrose's conservative majority, concerned about fiscal responsibility and local control, must reject this recall as a politically motivated attack. The 2023 dress code policy, the controversial sex education survey from HB 19-1032, and the misleading civics education mandate of SB 21-067, all linked to Langston and Coram's actions, stem from the same far left agenda eroding the county's values. Residents demand transparency from the recall committee, including a detailed cost breakdown for their financial claims, and call for the Montrose Daily Press to prioritize factual reporting over advocacy.

By supporting Mijares, Montrose can uphold its commitment to accountability, fiscal prudence, and community-driven governance. His efforts to address the North Campus project's financial burden, ensure legal compliance in public health appointments, and maintain transparency in BOCC operations reflect the conservative principles residents value. The fight to preserve Montrose's identity begins with rejecting this recall, ensuring local governance remains true to its conservative roots.

Commissioner Sue Hansen, Grasping to regain the Strings of Power!

Montrose County, Colorado, has been embroiled in political turmoil, with Commissioner Sue Hansen at the center of controversy. Her actions, particularly her hypocrisy, brazen attitude, and apparent disregard for the voters and fellow Republican officials, have sparked significant criticism. Hansen’s conduct, her inconsistent stance on First Amendment rights, her abandonment of the Republican Party that propelled her into office, and her active participation in the recall campaign against fellow Commissioner Scott Mijares, raises serious questions about her commitment to the electorate and the principles of fair governance.

Hypocrisy in Restricting First Amendment Rights

One of the most glaring issues with Commissioner Hansen’s conduct is her apparent double standard regarding First Amendment rights. While watching the Commissioner’s meeting on July 21st, It was discovered by this author, that Hansen tried to impose restrictions on David White, the Interim County Manager, by limiting his ability to participate in civic and political activities within the party of his choosing as well as attempted to keep him from making any public statements without first having the blessing of the County’s Communications Director (which Commissioners Pond and Mijares removed from his contract). Such restrictions infringe upon White’s constitutional protections, specifically his right to free speech and association as well as the ability to transparently inform the public of important matters. Yet, Hansen herself has actively engaged in political activities, notably as a participant in the Recall Scott Mijares campaign. This stark contrast suggests that Hansen believes the rules she imposes on others do not apply to her.

As a county commissioner, Hansen’s role demands impartiality and respect for the constitutional rights of all, including her colleagues and county employees. By restricting White’s civic participation while freely engaging in her own political endeavors, Hansen displays a troubling hypocrisy. This selective application of principles undermines her credibility and erodes public trust in her leadership. It raises the question: why does Hansen believe it is acceptable for her, as an elected official, to curtail the rights of others while exercising those same rights herself? Such actions reflect a brazen attitude that prioritizes personal agendas over equitable governance.

Abandonment of the Republican Party

Hansen’s decision to abandon the Republican Party, which supported her appointment and subsequent elections to the Montrose County Board of Commissioners, further fuels criticism. In 2018, the Montrose County Republican Party selected Hansen as the interim commissioner for District 2, praising her qualifications and alignment with party values. She went on to win two full terms with Republican support, leveraging the party’s endorsement and voter base to secure her position. However, in April 2025, it emerged that Hansen had left the Republican Party without informing party leadership, a move that Montrose County Republican Party Chair Monty George described as a betrayal of the electorate that supported her.

This abrupt departure from the party that facilitated her political career is seen by many as a disregard for the voters who elected her under the Republican banner. Hansen’s exit suggests a willingness to abandon the principles and platform she campaigned on, leaving constituents feeling misled. Her actions imply that the loyalty of the Republican electorate, which backed her for eight years, is secondary to her personal or political motivations. This move not only alienates her voter base but also undermines the integrity of the electoral process, as it calls into question her commitment to the values she once championed.

Participation in the Recall Scott Mijares Campaign

Hansen’s active involvement in the Recall Commissioner Scott Mijares campaign further exemplifies her disregard for collegiality and the voters’ will. The recall effort, launched July 1st with their filing of paperwork for the recall with the Colorado Secretary of State, is completely baseless and driven by activists dissatisfied with his election in November 2024. Hansen’s public support for this campaign, while serving as a commissioner alongside Mijares, is particularly contentious. Her participation suggests a willingness to undermine a fellow elected official, elected by the same voters she serves, rather than working collaboratively to address county challenges.

This involvement is especially problematic given Hansen’s criticism of Mijares that started prior to his swearing in back in January of 2025 due to Mijares opposition of both the premature hiring of a county manager and the approval of the ill-advised North Campus building project as the previous Board did just before they left office.

Additionally, during a July 7 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Hansen praised Interim County Manager Leslie Quon who had put forth allegations of harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment by Mijares that prompted her resignation as interim county manager, yet she remained as county HR Director.  A claim that Mijares disputes.

By aligning herself with the recall effort, Hansen appears to prioritize political vendettas over the stability of county governance. Her actions contribute to the “unusual instability” described in local reports, including the failed county manager hire and Quon’s resignation. This pattern of behavior suggests Hansen is more focused on personal or factional interests than on fostering unity and effective leadership within the county.

Disdain for Voters and Republican Officials

Hansen’s actions collectively reflect a disdain for the voters and other Republican officials who have supported her tenure. Her abandonment of the Republican Party, coupled with her active role in the recall campaign, signal a lack of respect for the electoral process that placed both her and Mijares in office. By turning her back on the party and engaging in efforts to oust a fellow commissioner, Hansen disregards the will of the 18,129 voters who supported Mijares in the 2024 election. Her behavior suggests that she views her position as a platform for personal agendas rather than a mandate to serve all constituents, regardless of political affiliation.

Moreover, Hansen’s interactions with other Republican officials highlight her dismissive attitude. Her failure to communicate her departure from the party to Monty George, Party Chair, the Republican Executive Committee and other GOP leaders indicates a lack of transparency and respect for the party structure that bolstered her career.

This lack of courtesy extends to her colleagues on the Board of Commissioners, where her opposition to attorney Bradley Mitchell (who applied to be the Montrose County Manager) and whom Mijares supported, was drummed out of contention for the job. It was obvious that Commissioner Hansen allowed a personal agenda to get in the way of hiring a highly qualified candidate simply because that is who Commissioner Mijares wanted, so she refused to negotiate, which contributed to further administrative chaos. Hansen’s actions suggest a pattern of prioritizing her own views over collaborative governance, alienating both voters and fellow officials.

Conclusion

Commissioner Sue Hansen’s conduct in Montrose County reflects a troubling combination of hypocrisy, disloyalty, and disregard for the voters. Republican officials, who have supported her and Montrose County overall, are similarly dismissed. Her inconsistent stance on First Amendment rights, abandonment of the Republican Party, and active participation in the Recall Scott Mijares campaign demonstrate a brazen attitude that undermines her role as a public servant.

By prioritizing personal agendas over the interests of her constituents and colleagues, Hansen has contributed to the county’s political instability and eroded public trust. Montrose County deserves leadership that respects the electoral process, upholds constitutional principles, and fosters unity rather than division. Hansen’s actions fall short of this standard, calling into question her suitability for continued public office.

Ray Langston, The Disgraced former Republican leader and current political

Cancer spearheading the Scott Mijares Recall Effort

Ray Langston, a key figure in the Recall Scott Mijares Effort has a checkered past of his own that should tell him “Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house”. 

What is Ray Langston’s record, and why was he removed from the Montrose Republican Party Executive Committee? Yes, Ray, the party has documented evidence, so your threat of a lawsuit is baseless and comes across as an attempt to regain relevance. Mr. Langston’s association with the “Montrose Republican Women’s Club” is a troubling matter (maybe he actually believes he is a woman, one never knows these days), given the verified accounts of his public mistreatment of women, as detailed below.

• Violation of Party By-Laws (Pre-Primary Neutrality): As Candidate Support Chair in 2022, Langston was removed by the Montrose County Republican Party for failing to remain neutral during the primary season, a direct violation of party by-laws. His appeal to the State Party was rejected, confirming the violation.

• Unauthorized Use of Party Funds: In 2020, Langston used campaign donations intended for candidate support to fund a party dinner and purchase gift cards without Central Committee authorization, breaching party financial protocols.

• Theft of Campaign Funds: Witnesses reported Langston taking cash donations for candidates from a desk drawer at party headquarters without providing receipts, leading to unaccounted funds. The Party Treasurer could not verify if all donated funds were reported.

• Theft of Campaign Literature: In June 2020, Langston stole campaign materials belonging to congressional candidate Lauren Boebert, refusing to return them until a County Commissioner retrieved them from his residence, prompting a police report.

• Failure to Submit Financial Reports: Langston has not submitted the required final financial report for December 2020, over four and a half years later, raising concerns about transparency and potential corruption.

• Verbal Assaults and Abusive Behavior: Langston has a documented history of verbally assaulting party members, particularly women, including the Party Secretary who resigned due to his abuse, an Army veteran at the County Fair, and a guest speaker at a 2021 Central Committee meeting. His outbursts often included profanity, such as the F-word, and derogatory terms like “hissy fit” directed at women demanding financial transparency.

• False Accusations and Slander:  Langston repeatedly made false accusations against party members, labeling them as “corrupt,” “con artists,” or “liars” to deflect from his own misconduct. He falsely accused a Meet & Greet sponsor of a violent outburst in 2024, despite 35 witnesses, including law enforcement, confirming Langston’s own disruptive behavior.

• Sabotage of Congressional Candidate: Langston condoned or participated in efforts to sabotage Lauren Boebert’s 2020 primary and general election campaigns, including spreading false statements about event attendance by “Freedom Caucus” members, violating party by-laws and undermining party unity.

• Violations of Free Speech and Assembly: Langston disrupted party events, including a 2021 Central Committee meeting and the 2024 caucus, with violent outbursts, intimidating attendees and infringing on their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. His actions led to a five-year ban from party functions in 2024.

• Support for Non-Republican Agendas: Langston defended former State Senator Don Coram, who supported legislation (HB 19-1032, SB 21-067, HB 19-1263, SB 20-217) that betrayed Republican values, including promoting controversial sex education, decriminalizing fentanyl, and removing law enforcement’s qualified immunity. Langston’s alignment with Coram, who openly distanced himself from the Republican Party, suggests disloyalty to party principles.

• Refusal to Accept Vacancy Committee Decisions: In 2020, Langston violated by-laws by refusing to accept a Vacancy Committee’s appointment to fill a Central Committee seat, disregarding the explicit requirement to comply.

Reasons to Oppose Signing the Recall Scott Mijares Petition

• Association with Discredited Figure: The Recall Scott Mijares Committee is led by Ray Langston, whose documented history of corruption, theft, verbal assaults, and by-law violations undermines the credibility of the recall effort. Aligning with Langston, a disgraced former GOP Chair, suggests the recall is driven by personal vendettas rather than legitimate governance concerns.

• Association with Far-Left Groups:  The recall coalition includes groups like “No Kings” and “Unify Montrose,” which are linked to far-left activist networks such as Indivisible. Indivisible, founded in 2016 to resist the Trump administration, is a far-left grassroots movement with thousands of local chapters nationwide, advocating for policies like universal healthcare, environmental protection, and opposition to Republican agendas. Its alignment with “Unify Montrose” and “No Kings” indicates a far-left ideological push that contrasts with Montrose County’s conservative values, casting doubt on the recall’s motives.

• Bipartisan but Misguided Coalition:  The recall group comprises radical left-leaning groups, “No Kings” and “Unify Montrose,” alongside Langston, a self-proclaimed Republican who supports Democrat-aligned figures like Don Coram. This coalition appears to prioritize overturning the 2024 election results over respecting the will of the 18,129 Montrose County voters who elected Mijares.

• False Accusations Against Mijares: Langston’s claims that Mijares is not a “lifelong Republican” are misleading, as Mijares has consistently identified as a lifelong conservative, a claim supported by his record. Langston’s accusations mirror his pattern of slander and libel to discredit opponents.

• Disruption of County Progress: Mijares has advocated for transparency and accountability in county government, as promised in his campaign. The recall effort, backed by Langston’s divisive tactics and far-left allies, risks stalling important county initiatives, such as the search for a permanent county manager, as noted by Mijares in his public statement.

• Political Stunt Over Public Interest:  Mijares has described the recall as a “political stunt” by a small group of activists attempting to reverse an election outcome they dislike. Langston’s history of sowing discord, combined with the involvement of far-left groups like Indivisible, supports this view, suggesting the recall is more about power struggles than public welfare.

• Langston’s Hypocrisy and Intimidation Tactics: Langston accuses others of corruption while failing to address his own financial misconduct and threatens legal action against critics, such as Commissioner Sean Pond, to silence opposition. Voters should not be intimidated by his tactics or support a recall tainted by his involvement and far-left affiliations.

• Undermining Democratic Process: The recall effort disregards the democratic choice of Montrose County voters in November 2024. Supporting the recall aligns with Langston’s anti-democratic behavior and the agenda of groups like Indivisible, which has a history of organizing protests to oppose conservative policies.

Voters, especially Republicans and Independents, are urged to reject the recall petition to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and avoid endorsing Langston’s documented misconduct and the far-left agenda of his coalition partners.

Furthermore, if the above reasons are insufficient, here are additional reasons not to support the recall of Commissioner Scott Mijares (petition details with Commissioner Mijares' responses included):

1. Mijares violated Colorado Open Meetings Law, CRS §26-6-402. He conspired with another commissioner to force the resignation of the county manager and county attorney. Key decisions regarding county government were made and continue to be made outside of public meetings.

Response: There was no violation of CRS 26-6-402, no secret meetings. Rodriguez and Whitmore made it clear to the two new commissioners that they had no respect for the voters to choose who they wanted to lead our county forward. Their “WE’LL SHOW THEM WHO RUNS THIS COUNTY” attitude lead to their voluntary resignation when they realized the game was over.

2. Over half a million taxpayer dollars have been wasted on severance packages, backfilling positions, and unnecessary outside legal fees.

Response: County Manager and County Attorney were awarded a severance payment equal to 6 months of their trailing salary (Which was contractually obligated). The total severance paid was $177,395.00. The BOCC approved up to $10,000.00 for outside council if needed. Not $500,000.00 as claimed by recall committee.

3. Mijares attempted to halt previously approved North Campus construction project, exposing the county to a breach of contract penalty and wasting staff hours, before retreating under public pressure.

Response: On December 18th, 2024 the outgoing board committed the County to a $24,000,000.00 North Campus building. This decision was of grave concern to our Finance Department. As a result Mijares made a motion to pause the construction to review the implications of the project on the County Budget. This was a hasty decision made just 27 days prior the old board leaving office. His motion was not seconded - there was no impact on the project.

4. Mijares demoted the Public Health Director, then changed his decision weeks later, eroding confidence in the county’s ability to provide essential health services.

Response: Colorado Revised Statue 25-1-508 states, “The Public Health Director SHALL be selected by the County Board of Health”. This did not occur. The BOCC voted to follow Colorado law and a new Public Health Director was appointed by the Board of Health. There was no loss of essential services to citizens.

5. Mijares’s unpredictable actions have created instability, resulting in a toxic and fearful work environment for county employees.

Response: Commissioner Mijares has increased integrity and accountability to the BOCC by following the law and increasing transparency. This comes despite the efforts of certain individuals who wish to undermine his efforts and sow chaos. This recall effort is without merit and hurts the people of Montrose County. DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION. THEY ARE NOT AFTER SCOTT, THEY ARE AFTER YOU. SCOTT IS JUST IN THE WAY

City Manager appears upset that the City’s antics are being exposed!

7/14/2025

The following email was received by the MontroseMirror this past week concerning recent DOGE & White posts.

“Good morning. Please stop this nonsense. How long are you going to perpetuate David White and the DOGE’s lying about me and my family? It is one thing to disagree with a member of the government’s professional decisions, but it is not morally acceptable to enable them to continually attack children and family members and myself regarding things we have not done. At some point, this craziness has to stop. You and they are tearing apart our community and ruining peoples lives for no reason. Every single post the Montrose DOGE has posted has been filled with lies and misinformation, including this week’s…they apparently don’t understand what a payroll deduction is, so they tell the public that the city paid for me and several employees to be part of a corporate membership at the bridges using tax dollars is just flat out lying and you are spreading that information using your media capabilities, which is just as bad, if not worse than what they are doing. City employees are real people with families and this type of abuse is uncalled for and needs to stop!

William E Bell, MPA,

City Manager Montrose, Colorado

Montrose Citizen DOGE’s Response to City Manager Bill Bell.

Dear Mr. Bell,

We appreciate your outreach and understand your concerns regarding the reporting by DOGE and its coverage by the Montrose Mirror. However, we must address the inaccuracies in your letter and clarify the issues raised, which are grounded in public records and factual observations, not misinformation or personal attacks.

Firstly, DOGE has never targeted or mentioned your children in our reporting. The assertion that we have attacked your family is unfounded. Public records show that you invited your children to participate in city-sponsored golf tournaments at The Bridges and Cobble Creek. This was your decision, not an action initiated or highlighted by DOGE. Our focus remains on the use of public resources, not personal family matters.

Regarding the golf memberships, public records, including the City of Montrose's check registry, indicate that taxpayer funds have been used to facilitate memberships at private golf clubs, The Bridges and Cobble Creek, through payroll deductions for certain city employees. The issue is not the concept of payroll deductions (we are fully aware how payroll deductions work as our own experience as corporate business leaders has made us fully aware), but the use of public funds to subsidize access to private facilities. The coding of these transactions in the city's check registry lacks transparency, raising legitimate questions about accountability and the appropriateness of using taxpayer dollars for such purposes. There is no clear justification for why the City of Montrose should front costs for private golf club memberships, particularly when these benefits are not uniformly available to all employees or taxpayers.

MontroseDOGE, has on more than one occasion, offered, previously Mayor Reed, and later Mayor Frank, along with yourself, the opportunity to refute, in an open public forum, any perceived inaccuracies of David White and DOGE’ reporting, yet these offers have been met with silence. And instead of engaging with us directly you have chosen to attack the publisher of the Montrose Mirror. Despite DOGE providing a direct email address (info@montroseDOGE.org) in every one of our posts, neither you nor any member of the City Council or your staff has reached out to us. The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that there are no legitimate grounds to dispute the evidence we have presented, which is based on documented public records.

Our mission at MontroseDOGE is to promote transparency and ensure public resources are used responsibly. Our posts are based on the city's own financial records, which are available for public scrutiny. We have not spread lies or misinformation but have sought to inform the community about how their tax dollars are being spent. If there are errors in our interpretation of payroll deductions or other financial mechanisms, we invite you to provide detailed clarification, including specific documentation, to correct the record. Our email remains open for such dialogue.

We agree that city employees are real people with families, and our intent is not to cause harm but to hold public officials accountable. The community deserves clear answers about why taxpayer funds are being used for private golf club memberships and why these transactions are coded in a way that obscures their purpose. We hope you will address these concerns directly to restore trust and unity in Montrose.

Sincerely,

MontroseDOGE

"WHILE YOU WERE OUT"  ENJOYING YOUR SUMMER.....

7/7/25

ATTENTION: Montrose Mayor, City Councilors, and Montrose taxpayers

As overseers and hiring/firing authority of City Manager Mr. William Bell, and ultimately responsible for every tax dollar spent, y'all take time for a closer look.  Remember "EXPECT WHAT YOU INSPECT?"   Are we coming in loud and clear yet?  The funneling of taxpayer $$$$!

Is it no surprise that Bill Bell, Conner Bell, Sydney Bell, and William Woody (of Steve Woody fame) won the HopeWest Hospice Golf Tournament on June 21st held at Cobble Creek?  The foursome that tied them did not spend YOUR taxpayer money. They were runner-up with the same score!!   Well, it gets better!!

When there is one, there is more than one

$1,000.00    6/10/25.  "Operating Fund".

Bill Bell's family and friend, winners of the

HopeWest Hospice Golf Tournament.

$1,000.00    5/8/25.    "Public Safety Fund".

Police Chief Blaine Hall's "Golf Team".

HopeWest Hospice Golf Tournament

$8,000.00   5/19/25:  Remington's (Bridges)

    Get this! RE: "Self-Insurance Medical, Dental, Vision"

$4,000.00 5/19/25: Remington's (Bridges)

    RE: No category assignment-time to go back and check?

$1,280.00   5/19/25: Remington's (Bridges)

    RE: "Self-Insurance Medical, Dental, Vision"

$ 640.00   5/19/25.   Remington's (Bridges)

    No category assignment - check with legal first!

$5,530.00 10/17/24. Links at Cobble Creek

RE: "City Championship Green Fees

and Prize Money".

$5,530.00 10/17/24.  Bridges Golf Club

NO KIDDING:

RE: "Payment for City Championship"

Why not hold this at Black Canyon (owned by the City)?

Hmmmmmmmmmm $5,530 X 2 = $11,060.00

Two City tournaments?   or "prize money?"

Let's see… does the City of Montrose own Black Canyon Golf Course, the one that runs in the red every year by hundreds of thousands of TAXPAYER dollars???

Or is this Bill Bell's Golf Course?

This information should be published in Bill Bell's "Fact versus Fiction" prank in the Montrose Mirror.

You do the Fiction Mr. Bell.  Montrose Citizens'  DOGE can do the Facts.



TOTAL $26,980.00 spent on The Bridges and Cobble Creek!!

Expenditures endorsed by City Mayor David Frank, and City Council's J. David Reed, Judy Ann Files, David Glaspell, Ed Ulibarri.  City Attorney?  "No "there there?"  Any conflicts of interest?

Only lawsuits and elections can fix this travesty and abuse of YOUR taxpayer funds.

YOUR VOTE MATTERS!!

Subterra Insights, LLC: Targeting Conservative Municipalities to Flip Elections?

By Leah Vandersluis, Concerned Citizen of Montrose

7/7/25



I attended a meeting at the United Methodist Church in Montrose on June 26, which Ellen Angeles announced at the last MCSB District meeting. It was sponsored by Subterra Insights, LLC. Although Subterra promotes itself as a neutral organization on their website, I discovered that there seems to be a hidden agenda to affect change in conservative areas, and they are targeting the upcoming Montrose County School Board election in November.

Led by Rob Rogers and Melissa Hendrix, the website states:

“At Subterra Insights, we are committed to pioneering innovative solutions that drive transformative decisions. One of our most groundbreaking contributions to the political landscape is the Citizen Lifetime Value (CLV) metric. This advanced tool, adapted from marketing analytics, enhances voter targeting and digital advertising, providing a comprehensive, data-driven approach to understanding and engaging voters.” (https://subterrainsights.com/revolutionizing-voter-targeting-with-citizen-lifetime-value-clv/)

This sounds harmless, but at the beginning of the presentation, several videos of Betsy DeVos, her husband and Lance Wallnau talked about the need to take over education (which Mr. Rogers called Christian Nationalism). At the get-go, the stage was clear: to make people think that all conservatives are Christian Nationalists, and how imperative it is to elect people outside of this ideology. There might be some “Christian Nationalists” who want to bring Christianity into the public classroom, but to make a sweeping statement (or impression) is dangerous.

We have two conservative school board members currently, and they are anything but “Christian Nationalists,” however, they both have a desire to see our public schools effective in raising up well-educated and well-adjusted future leaders of our country.

Mr. Rogers also claimed that “Christian Nationalists” are appealing to voters’ fears to get their support by using deception. Again, this does not apply to Montrose County.

Another disturbing issue was their view on charter schools. They do not believe that charter schools should be public schools. They claimed that certain people are given preference to attend over others, which does not align with the rules of charter schools. Enrollment is on a first-come, first-serve basis, and if there are more students than spaces, a lottery occurs. All children are accepted: ethnicities, genders, disabled, etc. The impression given was charter schools self-ruled and had little accountability, however, that is not true.

In a recent article in The Epoch Times: Why Charter Schools Received $60 Million Boost, it was noted:

Charter schools receive “much less than what lower-performing public schools get” (about $3,500 less per student). According to a 2023 report from Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, in 18 cities across 16 states, public-funding for charter schools over the 2019-2020 school year averaged $7,147 per student, or about 30% less than what traditional public schools receive. (MCSD will receive about $11,500 per student this next school year.)

“Charter schools across the nation are scoring better than traditional public schools in math, reading, and college readiness assessments.”

“According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 60.5% of charter schools are black or Hispanic, compared with 41.9% of traditional public school students.”

“Nationally, charter schools provide an average of 16 more days of reading instruction per year than public schools according to a 2023 report by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University.”

The report “involved data comparisons from more than 6.5 million students before the COVID-19 pandemic, states that low-income and minority students experienced more academic growth in charter schools. Eighty-three percent of charter schools produced reading scores that were equal to or better than their neighboring public schools…while 75% produced superior math scores.

“Perhaps the most revealing finding of our study is that more than 1,000 [charter] schools have eliminated learning disparities for their students and moved their achievement ahead of their respective state performance.” (https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/why-charter-schools-nationwide-just-received-a-60-million-funding-boost-5875921)

My son went to a charter school in Boulder County and it resembled a public school. There was no elitism, favoritism and unaccountability, and the student population was very diverse. I was very involved.

One last point… Mr. Rogers stated that public schools shape civic identity, workforce readiness and basic trust in institutions. Charter schools do this as well, and those that use a classical curriculum instill truth, values, and critical thinking more so than other charter and public schools. As a matter of fact, students in many charter schools learn about civics and how are government is run. Unfortunately, that is not the case for most public school students. Check out this article from the American Federation of Teachers: https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2018/shapiro_brown.

I will give Mr. Rogers credit in that he says that everyone should care about public education in Montrose, and all of us should be familiar with our school board and what is going on in our community. Absolutely!