Mesa County Commissioners violate County policy to appoint Janet Rowland to Board of Public Health

Last page of the intergovernmental agreement MCA 2012-079, laying out the relationship between Mesa County and the Board of Public Health (BOH). The appointment of Janet Rowland to the BOH was highly controversial at the time Commissioners made it, but the Commissioners skipped holding the required meeting with the BOH about it first.

The relationship between Mesa County and the Health Department is governed by the 2012 “Agreement, MCA 2012-079” (pdf), dated June 25, 2012.

The Agreement discusses financing, budgeting, purchasing and personnel policies, and it lays out the overall relationship between the two agencies.

Item #2 of the Agreement says a county commissioner may be appointed to the Board of Health, but Item #10 says:

“10. Points of controversy hereunder will be addressed by a meeting between the Mesa County Board of Health and the Board of County Commissioners.”

Janet Rowland

Janet Rowland was appointed to the Board of Health on April 25th.

It was a highly controversial appointment at the time.

On February 12, the Daily Sentinel published an article, “Commissioners seek to oust Public Health Director.” On February 13, KKCO-TV ran a story “Commissioners recommend removing Public Health Director from his post.”

Everyone knew by then there was serious controversy going on between Commissioner Janet Rowland and the Board of Health, and that controversy persisted and got more heated as the months dragged on.

This obvious controversy means that under Agreement MCA 2012-079, the County Commissioners should have held a meeting with the Board of Health to discuss Rowland’s appointment before they appointed her.

But they didn’t.

Dr. Jeff Kuhr

No meeting about Rowland’s controversial appointment appears on the Board of Health’s meeting agenda page. No agenda item about it exists. No minutes of a meeting about it exist.

That’s because there was no meeting.

The Commissioners did not consult with Board of Health about it, as required by the Agreement. Instead, the Commissioners just did it.

This shows the Commissioners are quite happy to willfully ignore County policy themselves when it suits them.

Violating County policy is the same thing Janet Rowland is charging Dr. Kuhr with doing, and in his case she’s citing it as a fireable offense.

Throw this on the growing pile of the Mesa County Commissioners’ obvious, unreasonable and frankly, sickening double standards.


  7 comments for “Mesa County Commissioners violate County policy to appoint Janet Rowland to Board of Public Health

  1. This is Mesa County; political positions are nothing more than a game of musical chairs, where the number of chairs is never reduced. One you’re in the game, you’re in it for good. Just ask Scotty McG.

  2. Thank you Anne for your writing on this issue. Like a lot of people in this community, I’m tired of Rowland’s poor “leadership”. I might not be as vocal as some, but come next election, I’m ready to donate to her opponent. I just hope we get a strong candidate, and she doesn’t do too much damage to our public institutions before then.

  3. This essentially railroads any legal defense of the Country Commissioners activities here, and if their sycophant lawyers are even remotely competent then they’re well aware of this damning agreement. Otherwise they’d have already fired Dr. Kuhr and been prepared to litigate this all in a courtroom…instead of merely trading defamatory bluster and accusations in the court of public opinion. This also might insulate the GJ Sentinel reporter from any frivolous lawsuit, as by the CCs violating their own binding agreement to justify any controversial appointment to the BOH, instead choosing to try circumventing their authority; they lost the right to claim the validity of these supposed “confidential” meeting that followed. Whoops!

    Yet again, we see these clowns supposedly representing the political party of Law & Order are interested in serving neither. At this point, it seems like Mr. Starr might have some legal exposure for his dubious actions and dirty deeds here as well.

  4. As apparent villainous ego(s) they probably thought it would not be discovered!
    Or a F U occured. Either way, T.Starr is most likely already on it.

  5. Maybe the “elected” commissioners should also be relieved of their duties if they want to disobey the laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *