From the Montrose Daily Press:  By Katharhynn Heidelberg Daily Press Senior Writer

Jet Center Partners’ months-long public records challenge against Montrose County ended in a split decision on Friday.

District Judge James Schum ruled that the county correctly relied on an exemption to the Colorado Open Records Act in its refusal to release the actual proposal submitted by Majestic Skies LLC during the negotiation process for a second fixed-base operator at the airport.

The county was also within its rights to withhold work product information created by the proposal review committee.

The county was however “in error” in not releasing other information sought by JCP, and in that instance, it needed to bend to CORA, Schum indicated.

The ruling hands a partial victory to both the county and JCP, which operates the current fixed-base operator facility at Montrose Regional Airport.

Jet Center Partners took the county to court over the latter’s response to public records requests concerning a request for proposals issued last year for a second FBO. Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, on a 2-1 vote that generated allegations of a tainted process, approved a contract with Majestic.

In 2013, Montrose County refused to so much as release the names of entities that responded to its request for proposals, and cited its procurement code in doing so. (The names were released in January.)

The county also cited the procurement code in refusing to release the proposals it had received — one from Majestic Skies and the other from TSG Asset Holdings, which was deemed insufficient because it envisioned off-airport operations. The county said that contract negotiations as part of a competitive bid process were exempt from disclosure under CORA until both parties ink a contract.

Schum considered a Dec. 5, 2013 and a Jan. 6, 2014 CORA request from JCP.

He found that proposals submitted pursuant to the county’s RFP are CORA-exempt, as are documents created by the county’s proposal review committee, which the judge said falls under work product.

The emails and communications with names of proposers created prior to the RFP should have been provided, as should have questions and answers between prospective proposers and the county and emails with the private citizen addresses, because the addresses could have been redacted.

Schum also noted documents had been requested that didn’t exist at the time the requests were made.

He said the county wasn’t obligated to supplement its responses with the updated information.

Montrose County officials on Friday were reviewing the ruling and could not immediately comment, said spokeswoman Katie Yergensen.

Jet Center Partners is both gratified and disappointed by the ruling, its attorney Steven Zansberg said.

“It is gratifying that the court found that Montrose County improperly withheld public records related to the RFP process,” he said in an email.

“However, we are disappointed that the county was found within its rights to withhold Majestic’s proposal from the public when no state statute precluded disclosure. We remain at a loss to understand why the county still has not, even today, made that proposal available to the public.”

It was not clear on Friday whether Majestic had signed the contract the county had approved on June 16. Members of the public were told the record would be considered public at that time. The Daily Press has tried for the past week to view the proposal; the county continues asking for clarification as to the documents and information desired for review.

Schum said the state’s procurement code is cited by the county, which is a political subdivision of the state. The law cited addressed competitive sealed proposals.

“Since the contents of the proposals should not be disclosed to competing offerors during the process of negotiation, the county was correct in not disclosing the proposals to the public during negotiations,” the ruling states.

But in addition, the county also failed to produce for inspection any document that listed the names of those who submitted proposals. Those documents included emails between the county defendants or between them and interested parties prior to the RFP being issued.

The county’s interpretation of statute to support its non-disclosure was in error, Schum said. The statute only covers the content of proposals; the county’s reading of it was too broad.

“To the extent that the county’s procurement code requires such non-disclosure, then the county’s procurement code conflicts with CORA and must yield to CORA,” he wrote.

The defendants also should have provided the questions and answers between them and interested parties. These were not part of the proposals — and had been provided to all interested parties anyway, the ruling says.

While the county was correct in declining to allow the inspection of citizens’ private email addresses, the content of those communications should have been provided with the addresses redacted, Schum said.

He ordered the county to “promptly allow” JCP to inspect the documents that he concluded should have been provided to begin with, but denied JCP access to the remaining documents it had sought to view.

Because JCP prevailed on some parts of its claim, it is entitled to some attorney fees; because its action was not frivolous, vexatious or groundless, Montrose County can’t recoup its costs, Schum’s ruling also stated.

The jet center has 14 days to file a claim and the county has 14 days after that to object.

“Our position remains the same as it was back in December: To have meaningful participation in the process of public policy making, the public must be provided access to the public records that underlie the county’s actions — before a policy is enacted,” Zansberg said.

This article was reprinted with permission from the newspaper.