Dolores Library District Board censures one of its members

The Dolores Library District Board took the unusual step Tuesday night, Nov. 25, of censuring one of its members.
The board voted 4 to 2 to pass a resolution censuring trustee Hassan Hourmanesh “for conduct inconsistent with the standards and expectations of the governing body.”
His alleged violations of conduct include disobeying open meetings law by sending emails to three or more other trustees; and denigrating the library district during an appearance before the Dolores Town Board on Nov. 10.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Hourmanesh defended his actions, saying, “Trustees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they are appointed to the board.”
The Nov. 25 meeting, which lasted less than an hour, included heated arguments and accusations of slander.
It was a special meeting of the library board, which ordinarily meets once a month on the second Tuesday. An audience of about 15 attended, including several members of the Dolores Town Board.
Five of the library board’s members were present in person, with Tamara Woodbury joining them by calling in from Arizona via a cell phone.
The board appears to be strongly divided over several issues, including what individual board members can say outside meetings, how transparent the district actually is, and evaluating Sean Gantt’s performance as the library’s executive director.
Hourmanesh and Emily Wisner-Meyers voted against his censure.
The censure has no direct impact and Hourmanesh remains on the board. However, it expresses strong disapproval of his actions.
At the Nov. 25 meeting, board chairperson Sandy Jumper read the resolution of censure, which stated that Hourmanesh violated the state open meetings law and the library board’s bylaws.
Specifically, she said he sent emails to the Colorado Library Consortium, known as CLiC, and all the library board members criticizing a trustee training that took place on Oct. 15.
Jumper said he also sent an email to the board and three public entities in which he asked two state agencies to investigate her and Gantt regarding “concealment of records.”
She said because he emailed the entire board and requested an action be taken, he was in effect creating a public meeting without the required public notice, a violation of state open meetings law.
Jumper also said Hourmanesh violated the library district’s bylaws and ethics policies by going to the Dolores Town Board and speaking openly about his concerns and criticisms. Bylaws say the president is the authorized spokesperson for the board, and the district’s ethics policies reportedly say the trustees shouldn’t denigrate the library district, trustees, or staff in public.
Hourmanesh responded by reading a lengthy prepared statement, which he later emailed to KSJD.
He said he did not violate open meetings law, which states in CRS 24-6-402 (2)(b), “All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.”
He cited a 2004 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in the case of BOCC of Costilla County v. Costilla County Conservancy District. In that case, the Supreme Court said two out of three commissioners attending an informational gathering did not constitute a public meeting.
“A meeting is part of the policy-making process when the meeting is held for the purpose of discussing or undertaking a rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action. . . .  In this case,” the court wrote, “neither the evidence in the record nor the trial court's findings of fact indicate that the Board adopted any rule, regulation, or ordinance, or took any formal action based on the information it received at the meeting. . .[so] there exists no basis to conclude that the meeting was subject to the OML.”
In his statement, Hourmanesh said, “In my case, there was no deliberation, no decisions made, and certainly, no attempt to conduct Board business in secret. . . . Without deliberation, there is no violation.”
He also defended his appearance before the Dolores Town Board on Nov. 10. Hourmanesh told them that he believes the library district’s bylaws contradict state regulations about communication.
He said that at the library, “the law has been applied too narrowly, discouraging lawful communication.”
The library district’s bylaws state that “Email communications between three (3) or more trustees will be limited to sharing documents relevant to Board business, such as reports, spreadsheets, and other applicable documents.”
Hourmanesh said the library board’s policy has “weakened accountability at the board. Suppression of trustee inquiries is discouraging engagement. . . . Exclusion and fear has reduced collaboration to zero. … we need the city to help us.”
He asked for training in governance and sunshine laws with a focus on dialogue. “Transparency was never meant to silence and intimidate. It was meant to enlighten,” he said. “Dolores deserves a library board that models openness, respect, trust.”
In his statement on Nov. 25, Hourmanesh said, “I did exactly what a trustee should do when internal efforts to correct legal misalignment go unanswered. . . . Speaking truthfully and respectfully, in good faith, to City Council about statutory compliance is not a breach of fiduciary duties; it is consistent with both my oversight obligation and the public’s right to know.”
The library district is a special district funded by a mill levy, as well as some donations and grants.
The disagreements raise broader questions about how special districts are structured and who oversees them.
In a phone interview, Jumper told KSJD the library district’s boundaries are the same as the town and Dolores school district’s. “We’re a special district within those two entities,” she said.
New board members are appointed by the existing board. Jumper said when there is a vacancy, it is advertised, and people who want to serve write a letter of interest. Then the board interviews them and makes a recommendation to the town board and school board.
Terms are for three years, with a term limit of four consecutive terms, according to the bylaws. Trustees, who are not paid, must live within the district.
The town and school boards have to approve the appointments, but Jumper said she didn’t think they ever had not approved the library board’s recommendations.
Whether the town and school boards have any other power of oversight over the library district is unclear.
Dolores Mayor Chris Holkestad did not respond to an email requesting comment.
There are numerous special districts in Montezuma County, including for mosquito control, schools, fire departments, the Cortez cemetery, and Southwest Memorial Hospital. The county commissioners have oversight of some of the districts, but not all.
Wisner-Meyers, who has been on the library board for five months and has served on other boards, told KSJD she believes a key issue facing the district is transparency.
She said she and Hourmanesh have put in several requests to Jumper and Gantt for information about policy but received no response.
She said it’s been difficult for her to find out when committees such as the Finance Committee and Evaluation Committee are meeting. The notices are posted, but they aren’t emailed to trustees.
Wisner-Meyers also has concerns about whether board members are given enough information before meetings. She said that at the board’s last regular meeting on Nov. 11, they were supposed to look over Gantt’s evaluation and contract, discuss the evaluation, set goals for the upcoming year, and then vote on approval of the contract.
“That's quite a bit to achieve if you've just received the source of information,” Wisner-Meyers said.  
“We didn’t get the contract till that meeting. There was no time to read it over. It wasn’t even in the board packet, it was handed out in executive session. That’s not okay. I should have had days or weeks to review it.”
Wisner-Meyers also said she had great difficulty getting information about the grants the library district had applied for and received over a one-year period.
“It’s like pulling teeth to get anything,” she said. “I shouldn’t have to put in a CORA [Colorado Open Records Act[ request when I’m a trustee.”
A key issue apparently involves an incident in 2023, when a former staff person at the library asked to have a third party sit in on her in-person performance evaluation by Gantt. That request was ultimately rejected and the person reportedly left the library a few months later.
In his statement to the library board, Hourmanesh said that the response to staff complaints and grievances was part of his concerns. He said multiple female staff members asked that there be a witness at their meetings with the director.
Hourmanesh said he tried to see a complaint allegedly filed against Gantt over the third-party request but it was not in Gantt’s record. Instead, it was filed in the former employee’s record.
“In my opinion, the request was misclassified as routine. . . and it was improperly filed in the employee’s record instead of the supervisor’s,” he told the board at the Nov. 25 meeting.
That led him to ask “why complaints and grievances involving the Director were not in the director’s file,” he said. “This process question is not intrusive; it is essential to any functioning oversight body.”
Woodbury, the trustee speaking by phone, said she wanted documentation of this complaint. Hourmanesh said the former employee had sent him a document outlining the complaint, but he did not keep a copy of the document. He said Woodbury could ask Gantt or the former employee to see it.
Jumper, the board president, said two employees had sent her a note asking to have a witness present at their evaluations. However, it was determined that that would be a change in the evaluation policy for staff members, so it was rejected.
Woodbury then said Hourmanesh was interfering with management of the library and this should be part of the censure resolution.
“Absolutely not,” Hourmanesh said. “I am asking a process question.” He said he believes the evaluation policy “is not kosher.”
Gantt said Hourmanesh had filed a CORA request to view Gantt’s personnel file, and when he did not find the complaint in the file, “you started accusing me of destroying or concealing evidence.”
He said the document in question was the ex-employee’s written request to have a witness present at her evaluation – not a formal complaint. He said it was signed by the other staff members at the time, but they wouldn’t have signed it if they thought it was a formal complaint.
“When I received that, it did alarm me,” Gantt said. “I sent it to the board president to review and formally respond.”
He said he was concerned because this occurred within the heyday of the #metoo movement and he was concerned about how people would interpret a female staff member saying she was uncomfortable being alone with him.
“I stepped out of it,” he said.
There is no indication that staff members accused Gantt of any physical or sexual behavior toward them.
“The board after reviewing it also found it not to be a complaint,” Gantt continued, “and told the employee that they would not be granting an exception to the [performance evaluation] policy.”
Wisner-Meyers then said that she had been copied on an 11-page document the former employee e-mailed to the entire Dolores Town Board.
“My main concern is how we can fix policy to prevent this from happening in the future,” she said. “The cat is out of the bag. The whole town council received this information.”
She suggested reviewing and revising the policy about performance evaluations to allow an additional person to be present and updating and expanding the entire grievance policy.
Jumper then said, “We’re getting into some issues we don’t need to be getting into right now,” and the board quickly voted 4-2 to pass the censure resolution.
They then took up the only other item on the agenda, which was to contact and retain an attorney to advise the board as needed. That measure passed unanimously.
Gantt said he wanted to state that he had never done anything against library policies. He said Hourmanesh and “this former disgruntled employee” should not characterize her request as a complaint.
Trustee Woodbury then said he was being slandered in the community.
Gantt agreed, saying that “sending out unverified, unvetted information to the town board” that included allegations against him sounded like board members were colluding with disgruntled employees to sully his name.
Wisner-Meyers then advised him not to make allegations against other people. She said, “Be very careful about what you’re saying as well, because you’re taking what you’re accusing others of doing and flipping it around.”
Board President Jumper told KSJD in a phone call that she has served on the board for four years and they have been very positive ones.
“There’s always a few little blips and bumps,” she said “but nothing bad. It’s been a good board.”
She also praised Gantt’s work as executive director. “Sean has done an excellent job with the library,” she said. “He has brought the library a long ways.”
She said she doesn’t believe Hourmanesh’s concerns are legitimate. “He’s trying to make an issue that a complaint was not in Sean’s file. It was a request to change some of our policies and the board decided we’re not going to change things.”
Hourmanesh told KSJD that he is simply doing his duty as a board member. He has served on the board for about 2 ½ years.
“We have oversight and governance responsibilities as well as asking questions about things that happen,” he said. “We can say, ‘Do you have a policy or strategy, a plan?’ We can ask, ‘How much can we allocate to buy books?’
“I’m a citizen of the district and a trustee of the library. I told the Dolores Town Board there is no law that says trustees cannot talk.
“I’m not talking for the board. I’m not being a spokesperson.”
At the Nov. 25 meeting, when the board turned to the second item on the agenda, hiring an attorney, Jumper was ready to call a vote as soon as the motion had been made and seconded, but Hourmanesh interrupted, saying he wanted discussion.
“I would like to see a statement of work before we sign onto a blank check,” he said. “What is this individual going to do and how much are we going to spend?”
Jumper said that would be brought before the board at a later meeting, but first the district needed permission to contact and retain an attorney.
Hourmanesh, now retired, told KSJD he simply wants more discussion about matters before the board. He said he worked for 16 years at Intel, managing contracts worth more than $300 million and working with a team of more than 84 people. He also worked for Microsoft and other companies.
“I’ve been coached and trained by lawyers, I’ve been taught by finance people,” he said. “You need to tell exactly what you’re going to do with money, not just say, ‘give me a hundred thousand dollars and I’ll do good for the country’.”
Despite their disagreements, the board members agreed on one thing – that they want the best for the library.
“We’ve always worked together for the good of the board and for the library,” Jumper said. “We try to follow our own rules. We do follow our own rules.”
Wisner-Meyers said she was reluctant to speak out about her concerns because she doesn’t want to be accused of denigrating the library district but that she has a positive view of the library and its staff.
“I really do value the library, its staff and its importance in the community,” she said.
Hourmanesh said he just wants open discussion about some of the problems and concerns.
“Talk – that’s all I ask,” he said.