Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. _________________________ JOHN SCHNEIGER, Plaintiff, v. GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff, John Schneiger, by and through his attorneys, Younge & Hockensmith, P.C., submits his Complaint against Defendants Downtown Development Authority of Grand Junction, Colorado and The City of Grand Junction, Colorado and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1.

Plaintiff John Schneiger is an individual residing in Mesa County, Colorado.

2.

Upon information and belief, The Grand Junction, Colorado Downtown

Development Authority (hereinafter “DDA”) is a corporate body and branch of the City of Grand Junction, Colorado and was established pursuant to City of Grand Junction ordinance number 1669. 3.

Upon information and belief, The City of Grand Junction, Colorado (hereinafter

“the City”) is a municipal corporation incorporated within the State of Colorado.

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4.

This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 and

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. 5.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

6.

The DDA was created in 1977 in order to prevent the deterioration of property

values in downtown Grand Junction and to assist in the development and redevelopment of downtown Grand Junction. 7.

The DDA was created pursuant to City of Grand Junction ordinance number

1669, and the DDA is a corporate body and branch of the City. 8.

After the City created the DDA, Bylaws were enacted for the DDA’s governance

and operation. 9.

The DDA’s Bylaws state that the affairs of the DDA shall be managed by a Board

of Directors. 10.

Under the DDA’s Bylaws, the number of members and the terms of the DDA’s

Board of Directors is to be determined by the City Council for the City of Grand Junction (hereinafter “City Council”). 11.

Additionally, the DDA’s Bylaws require that its Board of Directors have four (4)

officers, which are comprised of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, a Treasurer, and a Secretary. 12.

The DDA’s Bylaws also state that the DDA’s Treasurer is to be the City’s

Finance Director and the DDA’s Secretary is to be the Executive Secretary hired by the DDA.

2

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20

13.

As Treasurer of the DDA, the City’s Finance Director is responsible for keeping

all records of the DDA and, together with the Executive Director, is to approve all vouchers for the expenditures of funds of the DDA. 14.

The DDA’s Bylaws also state that the DDA is to employ an Executive Director to

act as its Chief Executive Officer, and the DDA’s Executive Director is to supervise and be responsible for the performance of the functions of the DDA and its day-to-day operations, which includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and supervision of DDA staff. 15.

A Memorandum of Understanding was also executed between the DDA and the

City in 2002 (hereinafter “MOU”), which established a mission for the DDA, along with the establishment of its legal duties and responsibilities. 16.

Under the MOU, the DDA’s Board of Directors is limited to setting policy and

giving guidance to the DDA based upon policies established by the City. 17.

The MOU also states that the DDA’s Board of Directors is to supervise the

DDA’s Executive Director, but no individual Board Member may direct or control the Executive Director or any other DDA employee. 18.

The MOU also states that the DDA’s Executive Director is deemed to be a

Department Head of the City, and the Executive Director is to be supervised in accordance with the City’s most recent Personnel Policy Manual. 19.

In 2005, pursuant to City of Grand Junction ordinance number 3815, the City

established the Downtown Grand Junction Business Improvement District (hereinafter “BID”).

3

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20

20.

Pursuant to City of Grand Junction ordinance number 3815, the BID is to be

governed by the same Board of Directors as the DDA has. 21.

Since the BID and DDA share the same Board of Directors, C.R.S. § 31-25-

1209(c) requires that the BID and DDA have the same officers. 22.

Therefore, the BID would have the same Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Treasurer,

and Secretary as the DDA does, meaning that the BID’s Treasurer is also the City’s Finance Director and that the BID’s Secretary is actually the DDA’s Executive Secretary. 23.

According to the BID’s 2006 Bylaws,1 the Treasurer, which would be the City’s

Finance Director, is required to keep all financial records of the BID, and together with the BID’s Director, shall approve all vouchers for the expenditures of funds for the BID. 24.

The BID’s Bylaws also require it to employ a Director as its Chief Executive

Officer, and this Director is responsible for the supervision and performance of the BID. 25.

However, and despite its own Bylaws, when the BID was created by the City, the

DDA’s Executive Director was required to act as the BID’s Director, which ultimately led to an impermissible comingling of public funds, assets, and liabilities between the BID and the DDA. 26.

Having the same Executive Director/Director for both the DDA and BID also led

to the Board of Directors for the DDA and BID to improperly treat the DDA and the BID as one organization, instead of two (2) separate and distinct organizations. 27.

This treatment of the BID and DDA by the Board of Directors as one organization

led to further issues with the comingling of public funds, assets, and liabilities between the two

1

The Bylaws for the BID mistakenly reference that the BID was created under City of Grand Junction ordinance number 1669, which is actually the ordinance that created the DDA. 4

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20

organizations, and this ultimately caused public funds to be misallocated and misappropriated between the two (2) entities. 28.

The commingling of public funds, assets, and liabilities between the BID and the

DDA was exacerbated by the fact that, at all time relevant hereto, the City’s Finance Director, the Treasurer for both the BID and DDA, does not appear to have done anything with or for these two (2) organizations, breaching the fiduciary obligations and duties owed as an officer. 29.

Then in April of 2015, the Executive Director of the DDA/Director of the BID,

Mr. Harry M. Weiss, announced he was leaving his position to take another job. 30.

However, prior to Mr. Weiss leaving his employment with the DDA and the BID,

he recommended that the BID and the DDA be separated and treated as two (2) distinct and separate entities. 31.

As Mr. Weiss’ employment with the BID and the DDA was coming to an end, the

Board of Directors for the two (2) organizations, at an April 23, 2015 meeting, indicated that two (2) Board Members were revising the job description for the DDA’s Executive Director Position and that the Board was going to establish a committee to interview potential candidates. 32.

The revision of the job description for the DDA’s Executive Director Position by

these two (2) Board Members was in violation of Colorado’s Sunshine Law, and in particular, the provisions of C.R.S. § 24-6-402(3.5). 33.

After Mr. Weiss’ departure from the DDA and the BID, the DDA’s and the BID’s

Board of Directors elected, in contravention of the BID’s Bylaws, to name Ms. Allison Blevins and Ms. Robin Brown as Co-Directors.

5

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20

34.

Prior to being named as Co-Directors, Ms. Blevins had been hired as the “Interim

Communications and Marketing Director” for the BID and Ms. Brown had been hired as the Events Management Director of the BID. 35.

Then in September of 2015, after receiving applications and conducting

interviews, the DDA’s Board of Directors extended a formal offer of employment to Mr. Schneiger. 36.

According to correspondence among the DDA’s Board of Directors, Mr.

Schneiger was offered the position as its Executive Director since he “would best fit the current needs of the [B]oard.” 37.

Additionally, at the time Mr. Schneiger was offered employment as the DDA’s

Executive Director, the Chairman of the DDA’s and the BID’s Board of Directors, Mr. Jason Farrington, stated that Mr. Schneiger’s “[p]rofessionalism, enthusiasm, and experience will be a welcome addition [to the DDA].” 38.

Mr. Farrington, at the time Mr. Schneiger was offered the position as the DDA’s

Executive Director, stated that the DDA would pay Mr. Schneiger $7,500 in moving expenses since he was going to have to relocate to Grand Junction, Colorado from Florida if he accepted the job as the DDA’s Executive Director. 39.

Mr. Schneiger accepted the position as the DDA’s Executive Director, and when

he did, Mr. Schneiger was asked to execute an Employment Agreement with the DDA. 40.

After executing this Employment Agreement, Mr. Schneiger moved to Grand

Junction, Colorado from Florida to begin his employment as the DDA’s Executive Director;

6

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20

however, despite moving to Colorado from Florida for this position, Mr. Schneiger was never paid the $7,500 the DDA promised to pay him for his moving expenses. 41.

On October 5, 2015, Mr. Schneiger began work as the DDA’s Executive Director,

and on October 6, 2015, he was asked to attend an Executive Board meeting with Mr. Farrington and Mr. Kirk Granum, the Vice-Chairman of the DDA and the BID. 42.

This Executive Board meeting was not attended by the two other officers of the

DDA, who are the DDA’s Treasurer and the DDA’s Secretary. 43.

At this meeting, Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum began giving Mr. Schneiger

specific direction as to how he was to perform his work as the DDA’s Executive Director, violating the MOU and the DDA’s Bylaws. 44.

During his first week as the DDA’s Executive Director, Mr. Schneiger was

introduced to Ms. Vonda Bauer, who was employed by the DDA as its Executive Secretary. 45.

As Mr. Schneiger discussed the DDA with Ms. Bauer during his first week of

work, he learned about the relationship between the DDA and the BID, along with Mr. Bauer’s concerns about the roles and responsibilities of the BID in contrast to the DDA. 46.

Additionally, Ms. Bauer informed Mr. Schneiger that while she was the DDA’s

Executive Secretary, she spent nearly all of her time working for the BID even though the Board of Directors for the DDA and the BID required Ms. Bauer to spend 85% of her time working for the DDA; this was because Ms. Bauer was a DDA employee and not a BID employee.

7

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20

47.

Mr. Schneiger then learned that Ms. Bauer was having to spend nearly 100% of

her time working for the BID since the BID’s Co-Directors were keeping irregular working hours, meaning they were not at work during the times they should have been. 48.

Mr. Schneiger expressed concerns over the hours the Co-Directors of the BID

were keeping, not only because Ms. Blevins and Ms. Brown were signing off on and approving each other’s time sheets for payment, but also because Ms. Bauer was not able to work the hours she was required to work for the DDA. 49.

These issues would not have developed if the BID’s and the DDA’s Treasurer, the

City’s Finance Director, was taking part in the supervision and operation of the BID and the DDA, as required by those organization’s Bylaws. 50.

Mr. Schneiger continued to raise concerns about the hours Ms. Bauer was

working for the BID, but the BID’s and the DDA’s Board of Directors never acted to stop the BID’s improper use of Ms. Bauer. 51.

Then during the week of October 12, 2015, Mr. Schneiger asked Mr. Farrington,

during an Executive Board meeting with Mr. Granum, if they could speak about the use of Ms. Bauer by the BID; Mr. Farrington refused to address the improper use of Ms. Bauer by the BID at this time. 52.

Mr. Schneiger then informed Mr. Farrington that without support staff, the DDA

would not be able to fulfill its responsibilities and meet its stated mission, which would adversely impact the perception of his work as the DDA’s Executive Director, and as such, he asked to speak to the entire Board of Directors about the use of Ms. Bauer by the BID.

8

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20

53.

However, Mr. Farrington refused to discuss the issue of Ms. Bauer’s time with the

entire Board of Directors, saying he would not consider a change until January or February of 2016, demonstrating the DDA’s and the BID’s failure to follow the MOU, their Bylaws, and the prior decisions of their joint Board of Directors. 54.

As Mr. Schneiger’s work for the DDA progressed, he continued to encounter

problems with the DDA and the BID, including the Board of Directors’ mismanagement of the two organizations and their funds, as well as the inherent conflict of interest that developed with the Board of Directors and their governance of the two (2) organizations. 55.

Mr. Schneiger also learned during his first few weeks as the DDA’s Executive

Director that the DDA was not utilizing “best practices” for the sale of land by going through a Request for Proposal process and obtaining appraisals prior to selling any land, and when Mr. Schneiger raised this issue to Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum, he was told that the City had no need to do these things; Mr. Schneiger ultimately discussed this issue with City representatives and was told that the DDA should be utilizing a Request for Proposal process and obtaining appraisals. 56.

In particular, during the week of October 26, 2015, an inquiry was made to Mr.

Schneiger about obtaining additional funds through the Façade Enhancement Program for a downtown building. 57.

When Mr. Schneiger looked into this request, he learned that this building and the

various businesses operating out of it had received approximately $32,000 in public funds over the past four years when only $10,000 should have been paid out under the Façade Enhancement Program over this period of time.

9

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20

58.

When Mr. Schneiger looked into this matter further, he learned that the DDA and

the BID had failed to keep any accurate records of what it was doing, and in many instances, had misplaced or lost records. 59.

Mr. Schneiger then learned that the DDA’s resources were going to fund the

BID’s projects and that the DDA’s revenue was being misallocated to the BID, a situation that would not have developed if the City’s Finance Director, the Treasurer for the BID and the DDA, was properly completing the required duties as the Treasurer for the two (2) organizations. 60.

When Mr. Schneiger became aware of these issues, he and Ms. Bauer spoke about

what was going on, and Mr. Schneiger believed that the BID was “cherry picking” DDA programs in an effort to increase its revenues, which included the Outdoor Downtown Dining Lease Program. 61.

With respect to the Outdoor Downtown Dining Lease Program, the DDA was to

collect lease payments under this program on an annual basis as it was budgeted as DDA being revenue; however, the BID asked to take over the program and collect the revenue, which appears to have been approved of by the City without any change to the applicable ordinances. 62.

Additionally, Mr. Schneiger learned that the BID asked that the DDA pay for the

Downtown Christmas Tree lights, but this was not a DDA function and no money had been budgeted for the DDA to do this; however, the Board of Directors for the BID and the DDA approved the DDA’s payment of these lights as a Capital Improvement Project, improperly depleting funds from the DDA’s account for Capital Improvement Projects. 63.

Throughout Mr. Schneiger’s first weeks as the DDA’s Executive Director, he kept

discovering instances where the Board of Directors for the BID and the DDA were misallocating

10

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20

and misappropriating funds from the DDA to the BID, as well as other improprieties with the use of public funds. 64.

On October 21, 2015, it became apparent to Mr. Schneiger as to the reasons why

the Board of Directors was permitting this misallocation and misappropriation of funds from the DDA to the BID; in this regard, Councilmember Martin Chazen, who was also on the Board of Directors for the BID and the DDA, indicated that the BID was going to be out of money if it kept doing budget draws and did not get its budget under control. 65.

As a result of the issues and problems that Mr. Schneiger saw with the DDA and

the BID, he presented the MOU between the DDA and the City to Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum, stating that the MOU needed to be followed in order to properly operate the DDA. 66.

Mr. Schneiger presented this MOU to Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum since he

did not believe that it was being followed in any form or fashion by the Board of Directors. 67.

Surprisingly, and which is a significant breach of their fiduciary duties, Mr.

Farrington and Mr. Granum stated that they were unfamiliar with the MOU and would need to review it before they could discuss it in any detail with Mr. Schneiger. 68.

Then during the week of November 2, 2015, Mr. Schneiger again asked to speak

with Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum about the ongoing issues with the DDA and BID in regard to Ms. Bauer’s time as he had very limited support staff to properly operate the DDA. 69.

At this time, Mr. Schneiger again raised concerns about Ms. Bauer being utilized

by the BID more than she should be utilized and that Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum, along with the other members of the Board of Directors, were violating the MOU between the DDA and the City.

11

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20

70.

Mr. Schneiger then asked Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum if he could speak to the

entire Board of Directors about the MOU and the misallocation and misappropriation of funds to the BID, but Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum said that this was not going to occur. 71.

As a result of Mr. Schneiger’s concerns about the BID’s use of Ms. Bauer, as well

as the BID’s improper use of DDA funds, and his repeated requests to discuss that with the Board of Directors, Ms. Blevins and Ms. Brown retaliated against Mr. Schneiger, creating a difficult work environment. 72.

Additionally, by November of 2015, Ms. Bauer was expressing her frustration to

Mr. Schneiger that the BID was taking advantage of the current situation and the fact that the Board of Directors was not doing anything to address the problems that were developing. 73.

Thus, Mr. Schneiger believed that the Board of Directors was favoring the BID to

the detriment of the DDA. 74.

In support of Mr. Schneiger’s belief, Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum were taking

action to undermine his ability to fulfill his obligations as the DDA’s Executive Director; for example, Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum were withholding information from him about DDA projects, such as the Broadband and Endcap projects, making it very difficult for Mr. Schneiger to perform his job duties. 75.

On November 13, 2015, Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum then met Mr. Schneiger

for lunch to discuss the ongoing issues with the DDA and the BID, including the use of Ms. Bauer’s time. 76.

At that time, Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum informed Mr. Schneiger that after

they polled the Board of Directors as to what the Board wanted to do, which is a violation of

12

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20

Colorado’s Sunshine Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-402, it was decided that Ms. Bauer was going to be working for the DDA 75% of the time, which contradicts to the Minutes of the Board of Directors’ September 10, 2015 meeting, and that Ms. Bauer was to continue to do all of the work she was doing for the BID and DDA. 77.

Mr. Schneiger then raised concerns that the direction that the Board of Directors

provided (which was improper for them to provide outside of an open, public meeting) appeared impossible, in that Ms. Bauer could not work for the DDA 75% of the time if she was doing all of her work for the BID and had to continue to do that work; Mr. Farrington ultimately informed Mr. Schneiger that he did not need support staff as neither he, Mr. Granum, nor any other member of the Board of Directors had an assistant. 78.

Mr. Schneiger again asked to discuss these issues with the entire Board of

Directors, and Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum finally conceded that he could, but they were visibly upset with Mr. Schneiger for continuing to want to address these problems with the entire Board of Directors. 79.

Days after this lunch meeting, Mr. Schneiger and Mr. Farrington then met with

Mr. Doug Brown of CGRS, Inc., in regard to the petroleum contamination located in and around the downtown Grand Junction area. 80.

While Mr. Schneiger was waiting for Mr. Farrington to arrive at this meeting, Mr.

Schneiger was told about the extent of the petroleum contamination in downtown Grand Junction and the concerns that CGRS, Inc., had about that contamination. 81.

When Mr. Farrington finally arrived at the meeting, he and Mr. Schneiger were

told that one of the areas of concern for CGRS, Inc., was in the area of Colorado Avenue, and

13

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20

that in order to remediate the contamination at this location, the work done as part of the Uplift Streetscape Project may have to be taken out. 82.

Upon hearing this, Mr. Schneiger believed Mr. Farrington became nervous about

the concerns CGRS, Inc., expressed, which could be explained by the questions that were raised by members of the Grand Junction community as to how the work on Colorado Avenue was ultimately completed by the City as part of its Uplift Streetscape Project. 83.

In any event, after hearing Mr. Brown’s comments, Mr. Schneiger believed it

would be best to address these issues with the City due to some ongoing DDA projects with respect to the residential development/redevelopment of downtown Grand Junction. 84.

In fact, Mr. Schneiger felt it would be best to address the concerns of CGRS, Inc.,

with the City due to concerns over public safety as a result of the magnitude of the contamination CGRS, Inc., was describing, along with the need to have an action plan to handle this situation when it became known by the general public. 85.

Upon information and belief, the City has known about the petroleum

contamination in downtown Grand Junction, along with the extent thereof, for a number of years but that it does not want the general public to learn of it as would drastically interfere with the City’s ongoing projects with respect to the redevelopment and economic development of the downtown area. 86.

A few days after the meeting with CGRS, Inc., Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum

met with Mr. Schneiger and informed him that they had received direction from the Board of Directors to have the DDA sever ties with him.

14

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20

87.

Mr. Schneiger was told by Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum that he could resign

from the DDA or be terminated that day, even though Mr. Schneiger had received no feedback on his performance as the DDA’s Executive Director; in fact, this ultimatum was a surprise to Mr. Schneiger since he had been able to accomplish a number of goals over his short period of time as the DDA’s Executive Director, such as moving the White Hall and the R5 School projects forward. 88.

According to Mr. Farrington, one of the reasons that he was being given this

ultimatum was due to the fact that he was utilizing too much of the City Attorney’s time with DDA projects; however, the MOU states that the City’s Attorney is to act as legal counsel for the DDA, and the items and issues Mr. Schneiger asked the City Attorney to look into for the DDA were items and issues that legal direction needed to be given. 89.

In any event, the direction Mr. Farrington and Mr. Granum received from the

Board to end Mr. Schneiger’s employment if he did not resign, which is confirmed in an email Mr. Schneiger sent to Mr. Farrington on November 19, 2015, violates Colorado’s Sunshine Law, C.R.S. § 24-6-402. 90.

In response to Mr. Farrington’s and Mr. Granum’s ultimatum, Mr. Schneiger

stated that he would not resign as the Executive Director of the DDA. 91.

As a result of Mr. Schneiger’s refusal to resign as the DDA’s Executive Director,

and since no employment action can be taken without properly noticing a meeting under Colorado’s Sunshine Laws, a Board of Directors’ meeting was required to be held on November 24, 2015 to discuss Mr. Schneiger’s employment with the DDA.

15

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20

92.

However, this meeting was going to be an impermissible “rubber stamping” of a

decision the Board of Directors has already made as Mr. Schneiger had previously been told that he was going to be terminated if he did not resign. 93.

The decision to terminate Mr. Schneiger’s employment as the Executive Director

of the DDA was made by the City and the Board of Directors of the DDA and the BID due to Mr. Schneiger’s desire to address the petroleum contamination issues due to the public safety concerns he had about that, along with Mr. Schneiger’s demands that public funds, assets, and liabilities with respect to the DDA and the BID stop being misappropriated and misallocated. 94.

During this November 24, 2015 meeting, Mr. Schneiger again raised concerns

about the various problems with the DDA, and in particular, the need for a clear delineation of responsibilities between the DDA and the BID, a Memorandum of Understanding between the DDA and the BID, and the misappropriation and misallocation of DDA funds to the BID. 95.

The following day, or on November 25, 2015, Mr. Farrington called Mr.

Schneiger to terminate his employment with the DDA, but since the meeting the prior day was an impermissible “rubber stamping” of a decision that was already made, Mr. Schneiger’s termination was in violation of Colorado’s Sunshine Laws and related case law. 96.

In a press release, Mr. Farrington stated that:

[Mr. Schneiger] has significant public sector experience but we were not able to offer him what he needed in terms of support staff and other organizational aspects of the job. Out of fairness to him, the Board concluded that it would be better to end now than to continue and have his and our expectations unmet. The DDA has lots of challenges before it and it is imperative that we have exactly the right person at the helm – we recognized that in the contract and although not what he had hoped for, the separation is best. We thank John for the time he was with us and wish him well in his future endeavors.

16

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20

97.

Additionally, Mr. Granum was quoted as saying that “[a] situation such as this is

always difficult – John’s separation is not easy but we have a duty to our constituents to make the best decisions we can even if they are as hard as this one was.” 98.

Mr. Granum’s statement rings hollow as the DDA terminated an Executive

Director who was actually protecting the interests of the DDA’s constituents by pointing out the various issues and problems the DDA and the BID had, which includes, but is not limited to, the misappropriation, mismanagement, and misallocation of public funds. 99.

Mr. Schneiger’s employment was improperly terminated due to the fact that he

was bringing significant public issues to light in regard to the operation of the DDA and the BID, the inappropriate use of public funds in regard to these two entities, and the concerns he had about petroleum contamination in downtown Grand Junction. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. § 1983 – All Defendants) 100.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference the statements and allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 - 99, above. 101.

As part of Mr. Schneiger’s job requirements and duties as the Executive Director

of the DDA, he spoke about many issues and problems with the DDA and the BID, which includes, but is not limited to, the misappropriation and misallocation of public funds, the misappropriation and misallocation of funds to the BID from the DDA, and the failure of the Board of Directors to follow the MOU the DDA had with the City. 102.

Also as part of Mr. Schneiger’s job requirements and duties as the Executive

Director of the DDA, he learned about the petroleum contamination in various areas of

17

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20

downtown Grand Junction, including contamination in the area of Colorado Avenue that was upgraded as part of the Uplift Streetscape Project; upon learning of this contamination, Mr. Schneiger spoke out about wanting to discuss these issues, and necessary remediation work, with the City. 103.

Mr. Schneiger’s discussions and speech about the contamination in downtown

Grand Junction and the misappropriation and misallocation of public funds was speech on a matter of public concern. 104.

The DDA’s and the City’s interests, as Mr. Schneiger’s employer, do not

outweigh Mr. Schneiger’s free speech interests on the topics he spoke out against. 105.

Mr. Schneiger’s discussions and speech in regard to the contamination in

downtown Grand Junction and the misappropriation and misallocation of public funds was the motivating factor for his termination as the DDA’s Executive Director. 106.

If Mr. Schneiger never spoke out about the contamination in downtown Grand

Junction and the misappropriation and misallocation of public funds, he would still be employed as the Executive Director of the DDA. 107.

Mr. Schneiger’s speech in regard to the contamination in downtown Grand

Junction and about the misappropriation and misallocation of public funds was an exercise of his free speech rights pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. 108.

Mr. Schneiger’s exercise of his free speech rights under the United States and

Colorado Constitutions resulted in retaliation from the DDA and the City, and this retaliation ultimately resulted in his termination as the Executive Director of the DDA.

18

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20

109.

As a result of the DDA’s and the City’s actions, Mr. Schneiger has sustained

damages in an amount to be proven at trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract – The DDA) 110.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by this reference the statements and allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1 – 109, above. 111.

In September of 2015, the DDA entered into an employment contract with Mr.

Schneiger for his employment as the Executive Director of the DDA. 112.

This Employment Agreement contains a number of promises, such as for the

repayment of moving expenses, but this Employment Agreement is also filled with a number of contradictions and ambiguities with respect to the employment of Mr. Schneiger how that employment can be terminated, and all of these contradictions and ambiguities are to be construed against the DDA and in Mr. Schneiger’s favor. 113.

At the time Mr. Schneiger was hired as the Executive Director of the DDA, the

DDA was required to provide him with certain resources and support so that he could fulfill his responsibilities and requirements for the DDA. 114.

The DDA materially breached Mr. Schneiger’s Employment Agreement by

terminating him when it did and in the manner it did, by not reimbursing him for his moving expenses, and by failing to provide the resources and support it was required to provide to Mr. Schneiger so that he could fulfill his responsibilities and requirements for the DDA.

19

Case 1:16-cv-00212-MSK-GPG Document 1 Filed 01/27/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20

115.

As a result of the DDA’s breaches and impermissible conduct and actions in

regard to the agreements and promises it had made, Mr. Schneiger has incurred damages in an amount to be proven at trial. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendants as follows: (a)

compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages on all claims allowed by law, in an amount to be proven at trial;

(b)

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

(c)

costs and attorney’s fees; and

(d)

such other and further relief as the Court deems just and necessary. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial to a jury on all issues so triable. Dated this 27th day of January, 2016. /s/ Benjamin M. Wegener Benjamin M. Wegener YOUNGE & HOCKENSMITH, P.C. 743 Horizon Court, Suite 200 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 (970) 242-2645; Ext. 203 (Telephone) (970) 241-5719 (Facsimile) [email protected] (Email) By /s/ Richard E. Lane Richard E. Lane, Esq. (39722) 743 Horizon Court, Suite 200 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Telephone: (970) 242-2645 Fax: (970) 241-5719 [email protected] 20