Dillon just can’t seem to help itself. At a time when many of us are thinking about the upcoming holidays and when more terrain will be open at our favorite hill, the town has another issue to slog through. As if three elections were not enough, the town is now facing another previously unscheduled election: a recall petition on three of its town council members.

I am not a fan of the current Dillon Town Council. In fact, if a current election were held, I would vote for a change with respect to some of its members. However, a recall election is in no way justified in this case. In fact, a recall election in Dillon is a very bad idea.

Article 21 of the Colorado Constitution specifically permits a recall election. However, it does not provide any guidance over “why” a recall election can be held. In other words, you don’t need a specific reason to force a recall. If you obtain the required number of valid signatures, all Colorado elected officials are fair game to be recalled.

In Dillon, this amounted to obtaining at least 17 signatures. Yes, you read that right. Only 17 Dillon voters’ signatures were needed to bring about a recall election for current council members John Woods, Dana Christiansen, and Renee Imamura. The petitions gathered double this amount to be on the safe side.

And what sort of malfeasance applies to these three board members? Presumably, some sort of criminal conduct or election fraud? No. They were caught embezzling funds from the town’s coffers? No. Paying off porn stars? No. Instead, they are facing a recall election because they did not vote on various projects the way some of the town’s citizens would have liked. According to one of the recall petitioners, the primary complaint is that these three council members aren’t listening to the community. She stated that “they’re failing to listen and respond to grave concerns of the community. Many members of the community feel this is the only way forward.”

Fair enough, I suppose, if you believe that the council is failing to listen. In my opinion, they are listening just fine. They are certainly listening and hearing much better now that the branded residence project was voted down. I don’t believe this is the real issue. Instead, these recall petitioners simply don’t care for the way these three council members voted on several projects/issues that came before it. As far as I can tell, there are no allegations concerning fraud, dishonesty or other conduct that would make them unequivocally unqualified to sit on the town council.

The simple point here is that we shouldn’t be using recall elections to remove elected officials without some “reason.” In Dillon’s case, there is no “reason” to remove these officials. I would urge the petitioners of these three recall petitions to consider withdrawing these petitions so that Dillon does not need to hold another special election so soon. It is simply not warranted for any of the three targets.

These three recall petitions are the result of a group of Dillon citizens having a dislike for the branded residence project. But this issue has already been resolved, with the voters rejecting the project as it had been presented. I do note, however, that 37% of the voters (132 votes) thought the project should go forward. This is most certainly an issue upon which reasonable minds may disagree. But it is not an issue that should force Dillon to hold another election.

If the developer of the branded residence project submits a revised planned unit development plan that included written proposals for workforce housing, removed the height variance for the observation tower and submitted an accurate traffic study, the Town Council would be remiss if it didn’t strongly consider approving the project. And why shouldn’t it approve the project if the primary reasons why the October recall was successful are addressed head on? This property should be developed, and the town and developer are close to an agreement that would likely survive scrutiny through what would be a seriously contentious hearing.

If there is something negative to bring up concerning the developer, the time is now to bring it up. Until then, I will assume that the only issues concern what is developed at this property, to which we can agree to disagree no matter how the vote turns out. But there should be a vote, and the three council members targeted for a recall should be able to make their votes heard. After all, they were elected to office by voters who should have their voices heard. And if you don’t think the council members are hearing your voice, the remedy is to vote them out in the next scheduled election. Absent something more sinister than a disagreement over votes on one or more issues, a recall election is not the path forward. It is not the path forward for Dillon.

Scott M. Estill’s column “Challenges, Choices, Changes” publishes biweekly on Thursdays in the Summit Daily News. Estill is an attorney, author, and public speaker who lives in Dillon when not traveling or attending to legal matters in Denver. Contact him at scott@scottestill.com.