The Dolores Public Library District Board held a heated meeting Tuesday evening to address allegations that board member Hassan Hourmanesh violated board conduct and ethics rules, as well as the state’s Open Meetings Law.
The hourlong meeting, which began at 6 p.m., drew about a dozen members of the public and was marked by raised voices, frequent interruptions and arguments among board members.
The board voted 4-2 to censure Hourmanesh after board president Sandy Jumper read aloud a resolution accusing him of violating the state’s Open Meetings Law, acting without board authorization and publicly criticizing the board during a Nov. 10 Dolores Town Board meeting.
Jumper said the conduct undermined board efficiency and integrity by violating ethics standards. Hourmanesh and Emily Wisner-Meyers voted against the censure. The resolution passed with votes from Jumper, Virginia Hernandez, Correen Becher and Tamara Woodbury, who attended by phone. Jeanne Becker was absent.
A censure is a formal reprimand indicating the board disapproves of a member’s actions, while the member remains on the board.
“We presented this at the last meeting but did not take any motion on it. I received a memo from Mr. Hassan, and I want to address two issues on here,” Jumper began, reading from the resolution. “You sent emails to all board meetings, and three public entities, wherein he took action to ask two state agencies to investigate the director and board president regarding ‘concealment of records.’”
Jumper and supporting members argued Hourmanesh’s emails to state agencies, the Colorado Library Consortium and all board members constituted a request for action outside a publicly noticed meeting. They said that violated Colorado’s Open Meetings Law, C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(a-c), which requires public notice of actions, recordkeeping and rules for executive sessions. They also said his public comments about transparency amounted to publicly denigrating the board.
Hourmanesh delivered a lengthy response before the vote, saying he was fulfilling his duty to raise concerns about legal compliance, board transparency and how library staff grievances were being addressed. He said he did not want to be silenced by the other board members and that his goal was to serve the public.
“I serve as fiduciary of the library public district. I have a duty of care to be informed, ask questions and exercise judgement,” Hourmanesh said. He added that when internal channels were unresponsive to his requests, he felt “escalation is an appropriate” external option to protect the public.
“Together all of these actions form a consistent pattern I am doing the work of oversight, I am asking whether our practices align with the law… whether staff complaints are properly handled, whether the director’s file is complete and properly controlled,” he said.
Board member Woodbury asked where Hourmanesh obtained a staff document related to staff grievances.
Hourmanesh said he received it directly from its author, a former employee from 2023, but did not retain a copy out of respect for privacy and suggested board members request it from the director if needed.
Jumper responded that she had knowledge of the document, saying employees viewed it not as a complaint but as a request to have a witness present during employee evaluations with the director. She said the board had already considered the issue and declined to change the policy.
Director Sean Gantt told the board he wanted to address the timeline and began to speak about the matter’s history. He restated that the document in question was a 2023 employee request to have a third party present during an evaluation and that it was signed by other staff members only as part of that request, not as a formal complaint or Equal Employment Opportunity filing.
“When I did receive that it did alarm me, I wasn’t sure what was going on. I did send it to my supervisor, my board president, to figure out what was going on,” Gantt said. “As you know, in 2023, this was toward the end, but well within the #MeToo movement.”
According to him, the employee had made multiple requests for policy changes that the board ultimately declined. When the board did respond, he said the matter was handled in a formal meeting and evaluations were recorded internally as part of the official process.
“Just for timeline sake, I want everybody to be on the same page, because I did not know what Hassan was looking for, because he was looking for a complaint,” Gantt said.
He stated that sending “unverified information” to the Town Board may affect his ability to do his job, adding that allegations were circulating outside his knowledge.
Wisner-Meyers pushed back, urging Gantt to be “very careful” about accusing board members.
The board unanimously approved authorizing the board president to contact and retain an attorney “as needed.” Hernandez seconded the motion.
Hourmanesh requested a statement of work before approving expenditures. Jumper said that would occur once she contacted the attorney and the hiring would be within recommendations by the state library board.
The board agreed the attorney would be hired to advise the board on governance and policy issues raised in the dispute. Woodbury said she also wanted legal guidance on whether the director has been defamed.
This story will be updated as more information becomes available.
