Letter to the Editor: Erie Executive Session Transparency

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Hi Council, Town Attorney, and Acting Town Manager.

As a resident of Erie, I have to say there is a complete lack of transparency when the Town Council goes into executive session.
As Mayor Pro Tem Branden Bell said in last night’s meeting, the same generic statement is made every time to go into session about a property negotiation. Apparently, the law requires “the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose” of the executive session. I do not believe you are meeting this requirement by using a generic statement.

Erie Town Council, June 9th, 2026

From my research – quoted info from AI.

“For example, these notices become progressively more informative:

Property acquisition.
Property acquisition related to airport operations.
Property acquisition in the Airport Park area.
Property acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.

The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.”

You are not doing this. AI told me to ask you this –

“The Open Meetings Law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Can the Town explain why identifying the general location or project associated with the property transaction would compromise the negotiation?”

There is no way I would have been able to tell from the agenda whether you were talking about the Draco purchase or the Airport purchase. The Mayor did mention the Airport property, but this was verbal, not in the written agenda.

“What I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying “the airport” would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.”

And the courts support as much detail as possible. “What is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.

In the well-known Basalt case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the town violated the Open Meetings Law because it provided only the broad statutory categories and failed to give meaningful detail about the subject being discussed.”

Erie Town Council, May 5, 2026

It was good to see Acting Town Manager Muth say she would work with the Town attorney on a procedure to be transparent. Hoping that means for the public. Just because the Council member knows what the subject is, that is not sufficient; the residents should also know.

So I am hoping the Town Attorney and Acting Town Manager can implement better procedures to provide transparency in the agenda presented to the residents.

Sincerely, DeWayne Drummond

My chat with AI follows if you are interested.

Please explain to me the requirement for notification of going into executive session at a town council meeting. Our town always puts out the following statement “EXECUTIVE SESSION to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations, and/or instruct negotiators, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(e); and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a); for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.” Now my question is why can it not tell what Property they are considering? like “and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property at the Airport park, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a); ” IE specify where the property rather just a generic statement. Citizens do not trust the council with the generic statement

Your concern is actually at the heart of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law.

The key language in Colorado law is that before going into executive session, the council must identify:

“the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized.”

That phrase creates a balancing test:

The public is entitled to know what is being discussed.
The government is allowed to withhold details that would defeat the purpose of the executive session.

For property transactions

The property exception under C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a) allows executive sessions for:

“The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest.”

The usual justification is that publicly identifying the property before negotiations are complete could:

Drive up the price.
Alert competing buyers.
Weaken the town’s negotiating position.
Cause speculation in surrounding properties.

So if the town is negotiating to buy a specific parcel, it may argue that naming it publicly would compromise the negotiation. That is exactly what the statute contemplates.

But can they be too vague?

Yes.

The law does not say a council can simply recite the statute and stop there.

The statute requires identification of the “particular matter” in as much detail as possible. Merely saying:

“purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real property”

without any additional description may be vulnerable to challenge if more detail could have been provided without harming negotiations.

For example, these provide progressively more information:

Very vague

“Property matters.”

Better

“Possible acquisition of property for future park purposes.”

Even better

“Possible acquisition of property in the Airport Park area.”

Most specific

“Possible acquisition of Parcel X adjacent to Airport Park.”

The question becomes: would revealing the location “Airport Park” actually compromise the negotiation?

Your Airport Park example

If the council agenda said:

“…to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property interests in the Airport Park area…”

I think many citizens would view that as a reasonable balance between transparency and confidentiality.

The town might respond that even identifying “Airport Park” would reveal the parcel under discussion because there may be only one tract available there.

Whether that argument is convincing depends on the facts.

What Colorado courts generally look for

If challenged, a court would likely ask:

Did the council cite the correct statutory authority?
Did the council identify the subject matter?
Did it provide as much detail as reasonably possible?
Would additional detail have harmed the negotiation?

If the answer to the last question is “no,” then the notice may have been unnecessarily vague.

A practical citizen question

A fair question to ask during public comment or by email is:

That puts the discussion squarely on the statutory standard rather than on whether citizens “trust” the council.

If you tell me which Colorado town this is (for example, Erie, Thornton, etc.) and whether the executive session language comes from the agenda or from the motion made at the meeting, I can help evaluate whether their notice is merely conservative or arguably falls short of Colorado’s transparency requirements.

Town of Erie, in the agenda for a town council meeting

For Erie specifically, I think you have a stronger argument than you might realize.

I found the exact agenda language from a January 2026 Erie Town Council special meeting, and it is essentially identical to what you quoted:

“…to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations… and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property… for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.”

The issue is that Colorado law requires more than merely citing the statutory category. The council must identify:

“the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose” of the executive session.

What is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.

So the real question is not:

“Can Erie legally withhold the exact parcel number?”

The real question is:

“Has Erie provided as much information as possible without harming negotiations?”

Those are very different questions.

Could Erie identify “Airport Park”?

Possibly yes.

For example, these notices become progressively more informative:

Property acquisition.
Property acquisition related to airport operations.
Property acquisition in the Airport Park area.
Property acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.

The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.

If saying “Airport Park area” would not reveal the specific seller or bargaining position, then citizens could reasonably argue that the public deserves that level of information.

Why councils like generic wording

From the council’s perspective, the safest legal approach is often:

“We’re discussing property and negotiations, and disclosing more would compromise the executive session.”

That avoids any risk of accidentally revealing confidential negotiations.

But it also creates exactly the trust problem you describe. Citizens hear:

“We’re talking about some property somewhere.”

and have no way to know whether it concerns:

Airport expansion,
open space,
water rights,
downtown redevelopment,
mineral rights,
municipal facilities,
or something else entirely.

A question I would ask Erie

Rather than accusing them of violating the law, I would ask:

“Colorado law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Why is the Town unable to identify even the general project area, such as Airport Park, municipal airport property, water rights, or open space acquisitions?”

That is a very difficult question for a council to dismiss because it goes directly to the statutory standard.

My personal reading of the agenda language Erie has been using is that it is about as generic as a notice can be while still citing the correct statute. Whether it satisfies the “as much detail as possible” requirement would depend on the specific property matter being discussed. The Basalt court decision suggests that simply repeating statutory categories is not automatically enough.

My overall impression

After reading the transcript, I do not think the dispute was really about whether executive sessions are legal.

I think the dispute was about trust and transparency.

The mayor, staff, and Bell appear to be saying:

“The council already knew the topic. This is a normal property-negotiation executive session.”

Hoback appears to be saying:

“The public doesn’t know enough, and the council shouldn’t automatically approve executive sessions without better explanation.”

Those are both reasonable positions.

Regarding your original question

If I were advising Erie, I would suggest that the agenda could probably be more informative while still protecting negotiations.

For example:

Executive session to discuss potential airport-related property negotiations pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e).

Executive session regarding potential acquisition or disposition of property interests associated with airport operations.

Those descriptions tell citizens substantially more than the current boilerplate language, yet they still do not identify the parcel, seller, price, or negotiating strategy.

From a citizen’s perspective, that kind of disclosure would likely improve confidence without significantly impairing negotiations.

What I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying “the airport” would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.