This is one in an occasional series of interviews with Colorado journalists. It is also part of the SPJ Colorado Pro Chapter’s 2015 Sunshine Week project. Sunshine Week is March 15-21.

By Ed Otte

Weekly newspapers face greater risks than metro-area news organizations when they challenge local government over freedom of information issues.

This is especially true with small, rural weeklies that rely heavily on Main Street and community support. If the newspaper doesn’t have the public’s trust in FOI fights, it could lose advertising revenue and paid subscribers. And, with legal actions, there are expenses.

The 2,500-circulation Herald Democrat in Leadville is the exception. It has, according to editor Marcia Martinek, the trust of Lake County residents “in matters of transparency or Sunshine Law issues. I don’t ever want to imply that people trust us on all matters.”

In March 2014 a district judge awarded the Herald Democrat $63,915 in attorney fees plus court costs of $309 in its Colorado Open Meeting Law lawsuit against the Lake County commissioners. The newspaper filed the suit in October 2013 over BOCC executive session violations in February of that year.

The county appealed the ruling in April 2014.

In an Oct. 23, 2013, editorial, Martinek wrote: “We hoped it wouldn’t come to this. We believe they made a decision to willfully violate the open meetings law. And this we cannot support. As journalists, we at the Herald Democrat believe that the public’s business should be conducted openly by those we elect. They say you have to choose your battles. This one is ours.”

After the Fifth District Judge ruled in favor of the newspaper in March 2014, Martinek said, “When we filed this suit, I said something about this being our battle. In truth, as we’ve learned in the past 13 months, open government is a common concern in Lake County. Our thanks to those who supported us in this quest.”

The Herald Democrat editor since July 2002, Martinek is on the board of the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors “and I have to say it’s the greatest resource I’ve found for weeklies.” She received the ISWNE Golden Dozen Award in 2010, 2013 and 2014 for outstanding editorial writing.  Since 1998 the newspaper has won 64 awards for writing, advertising, photography and design from the Colorado Press Association.

Like many Colorado mining towns, Leadville has had to reinvent itself over the years. The city’s population topped 40,000 in 1879-1880 during the silver boom. Today, the population is 2,580.

“The area suffered greatly when the Climax (molybdenum) Mine closed in the mid-1980s,” Martinek said. “Things are looking up with the mine’s reopening in 2012.”

Denver-based Centura Health on Feb. 24 saved St. Vincent, Leadville’s only hospital, from closing by assuming management of the 135-year-old institution for a one-year period. Voters defeated the 2014 ballot issue to raise taxes to fund the hospital.

Once known nationally for the wealth of silver king Horace Tabor, Baby Doe Tabor and “Unsinkable” Molly Brown, Leadville has international status today as the home of the Leadville Race Series. Its 100-mile ultras, including the annual “Race Across the Sky” at an elevation of 10,152 feet, draw cyclists and runners from around the world.

Like Leadville, the newspaper’s circulation peak is in the past. The Herald Democrat dates back to 1879 and it was a daily until 1986. The newspaper office is closed on Wednesday to save money.

And like history-rich Leadville, the Herald Democrat harbors a 1905 Duplex Printing Press and hot metal typesetting equipment in its basement. A Linotype is stored in another building in town and Martinek is “trying to get it back under our roof.” The newspaper, owned by Arkansas Valley Publishing, is printed at The Mountain Mail in Salida.

Question: What is the status of the appeal?

Martinek: We learned on Feb. 19 that the Colorado Court of Appeals will hear the case on April 29.

Question: What was the reaction from the community to the lawsuit?

Martinek: From the beginning we had support, probably because the lawsuit wasn’t just about violations of the open records and open meetings laws, but because it centered around a county employee who was alleged to have been dispensing and selling drugs from his county office. There were many rumors floating around, and most citizens wanted to get to the bottom of it. Also, there was a pervasive feeling around town that a cover-up was taking place.

However, there were a few people who were critical of us because in suing the county, we were potentially costing the county money – tax dollars.

Once, we won and then the county appealed, people generally blamed the county for dragging it out.

Ironically, the commissioners violated the law again by not holding a meeting to make the decision to appeal in public but by having the county attorney poll them via email.

Question: Is there a risk of losing subscribers or advertisers when people dislike your role as a watchdog of local government?

Martinek: In the case of this lawsuit, we didn’t lose any subscribers or advertisers. I did editorialize on why we filed the suit, and most people seemed to understand why we were suing. I think we had the community’s ear.

Most citizens seem to appreciate when a newspaper takes on government to make it more transparent. I always emphasize that the public and the newspaper are on the same side in these matters.

The people who dislike our role as a watchdog of local government are generally those we’re watching.

Question: What was the reaction of the commissioners and other county officials to the lawsuit?

Martinek: They were surprised. Even shocked.

Because we wrote so many letters requesting the tape of the meeting in question, I think the commissioners initially thought we were bluffing. We’d wrote, and they’d write back citing some obscure case law. We’d refute with another letter, and they’d do the same. Even when we notified them of our intent to sue and gave them one last chance to turn over the tape, I doubt if they believed us.

This is the first such suit that we’ve filed and the first such suit that has gone through the court here, according to the judge.

Since the suit was filed, the commissioners have never acted in any way toward us that is not professional. They did start requiring us to file CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) requests for anything we wanted that was under their jurisdiction, but that never extended to other county offices.

No other county officials retaliated against us in any way. A number of them were in sympathy with what we were doing and let us know. Privately. They didn’t write letters to the editor siding with us or anything like that.

Question: Have you had to challenge other local government agencies for violating the open meetings or open records laws?

Martinek: Yes. We try to stay on top of these issues.

The biggest problem is with executive sessions. That law seems to be quite puzzling to elected officials. Then we have our board that has failed to properly notice its budget hearings for three years in a row. We’ve had issues with conflicts of interest. A former mayor once tried to deny access to the police reports, but he quickly come to his senses with a little help.

Question: When do you reach the point when news coverage and editorials aren’t effective in persuading officials to comply with the laws?

Martinek: If officials are simply ignorant of the law, we can help inform them. Sometimes a quick phone call expressing our concern is enough. Most boards want to comply with the law. It isn’t always necessary to hang them out to dry in an editorial or point out the error of their ways in a news story.

In the case of our current lawsuit, I believe one official in particular was well aware of the open meetings law and willfully chose to disregard it, thinking no one would find out. (I guess I’d call that premeditated violation of the law.)

My first act was to call him and set up a meeting where I expressed my concerns. When that got us nowhere, we started down the long road which eventually led to us filing suit.

Question: Do Colorado’s open meetings laws and open records laws need to be strengthened?

Martinek: I think the law regarding executive sessions needs some clarification, but my greatest wish is that we find a way to see that these laws are enforced without newspapers having to spend a lot of money, or risk a lot of money.

In our current case, the law calls for legal fees to be reimbursed if we win. That’s good, and we do intend to win.

Last year, we also went to court when a public defender asked a judge to keep us from reporting on a sexual assault case involving one of her clients. She earlier had successfully gotten the court to gag officials concerned with the case so they couldn’t talk to us, but we still were able to do our jobs by using public records and attending court. When she tried to silence us, we had to respond. We won, but there was no reimbursement.

I suspect there are many newspapers that don’t sue when it is clearly warranted simply because of the cost. There should be a better way.

Incidentally, we are being represented by (Denver First Amendment attorneys) Ashley Kissinger and Steve Zansberg of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. They have done, and are doing a fantastic job with this case. They’re worth every cent we’re paying. But that’s not the issue.