A building in Douglas County that houses the a district court and the county jail
The Robert A. Christensen Justice Center in the Castle Rock area, pictured in August 2023, houses the Douglas County jail. Credit: Ellis Arnold

Douglas County’s elected leaders say they stand with Sheriff Darren Weekly in opposition to an effort to unionize the sheriff’s office, arguing the move would hamper the interests of employees and the public.

“We believe a union would not only interfere with the effective delivery of the exceptional law enforcement you’ve come to expect from your sheriff’s office but also not be in the best interests of the employees who work there,” County Commissioner Lora Thomas said in a March 25 video message with her fellow commissioners.

Union representation of the sheriff’s office could enable employees to negotiate salaries, benefits and other aspects of their jobs through collective bargaining, a possibility the sheriff’s office leadership opposes.

In the video statement, County Commissioner Abe Laydon said the union effort now has enough signatures to force an election to determine whether deputies want to be represented by the Fraternal Order of Police.

That organization is “by far the largest professional police organization in both Colorado and the United States,” according to the Colorado FOP website.

“In Douglas County, we oppose the notion that outsiders would think they know what’s best for our community, our sheriff’s office, employees and your safety,” Laydon said.

The Douglas County News-Press did not immediately hear back from the Colorado FOP for comment on the effort to unionize the Douglas sheriff’s office.

Asked when the election among sheriff’s office employees to decide whether to unionize will take place, a spokesperson said the sheriff’s office is still waiting to determine that. 

“It is up to the state Department of Labor,” said Deborah Takahara, spokesperson for the Douglas sheriff. “The sheriff would like it completed as soon as possible.”

Unwelcome effort

Weekly, the sheriff, opposes the unionization effort because “it adds another layer of bureaucracy and costs taxpayers more money due to staff time for both the sheriff’s office and the county,” the sheriff’s office claimed in an email. 

County staff “does an outstanding job to ensure pay and benefits are not only competitive with the rest of the Denver metro area but in many cases better than other law enforcement agencies in our region,” Takahara said.

Weekly was a member of the sheriff’s office for 29 years prior to becoming sheriff, Takahara said.

“He is committed to ensuring his staff are compensated, and he values their input on policy matters,” she added. “In addition, the sheriff and undersheriff currently have direct and immediate access to make decisions based on the needs of the organization. The sheriff and undersheriff often make decisions mid-year to issues related to salary and benefits of DCSO employees. A collective bargaining agreement would restrict this type of effort.”

The county government released a 4-minute video statement from the county commissioners about what county officials called “the unwelcome effort to unionize our sheriff’s office.”

“Since 2022, we have approved more than 75 additional full-time employees and invested $20 million in the sheriff’s office,” Commissioner George Teal said, arguing the county has worked to “provide exceptional pay and benefits.”

Timeline unclear

Asked which sheriff’s office deputies or employees are leading the effort to unionize, Takahara deferred to the FOP and said she does not have that information.

The Colorado FOP did not immediately respond for comment on when sheriff’s office employees began collecting signatures in support of unionizing.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Leave a comment
We encourage comments. Your thoughts, ideas and concerns play a critical role helping Colorado Community Media be more responsive to your needs. We expect conversations to follow the conventions of polite discourse. Therefore, we won't allow posts that:
  • Contain vulgar language, personal attacks of any kind, or offensive terms that target protected classes
  • Promote commercial services or products (relevant links are acceptable)
  • Are far off-topic
  • Make unsupported accusations