RIVERTON—District Court Judge Jason Conder heard hours of legal arguments in an unusual lawsuit that has placed Fremont County commissioners in the uncommon position of arguing they violated Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act, while the plaintiff insists they followed it.
Conder took three pending motions under advisement at the conclusion of the July 16 hearing, declining to rule from the bench on David Mossburg’s requests for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment or on the county’s motion to dismiss the case.
Instead, Conder repeatedly said the case hinges on what actually occurred during a June 24, 2025, county commissioners meeting and indicated he intends to personally review video and audio recordings of the proceedings before issuing a decision.
“I recognize the strange situation that the individual suing the county commissioners is saying you didn’t break the rules, and the county commissioners are saying, ‘Yes, we did,’” Conder said near the end of the hearing. “It’s understandably awkward.”
The lawsuit stems from the commissioners’ appointment of Mossburg and Karen Wetzel to the Fremont County Library Board on June 24, 2025. Before publicly voting on the appointments, commissioners used anonymous weighted ballots to rank six applicants. The ballots were tabulated during the lunch recess before commissioners reconvened; commissioners then announced the results publicly and unanimously voted to appoint Mossburg and Wetzel.
Secret ballot
After The Ranger questioned whether the anonymous balloting violated the Wyoming Public Meetings Act, commissioners revisited the issue twice that fall. On Oct. 7, they publicly voted to add their names to the previously anonymous ballots and discussed whether anyone wished to change their votes. Two weeks later, on Oct. 21, commissioners held a new public vote that retained Wetzel but replaced Mossburg with Julie Lefevre.
Mossburg served on the library board between the June and October meetings, a fact both parties stipulated during Thursday’s hearing.
Now a Republican candidate for the District 1 Fremont County Commission seat, Mossburg filed suit earlier this year seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. In an email explaining his intent to sue, Mossburg argued that he had been lawfully appointed June 24 and that the October revote unlawfully removed him without any finding of misconduct or neglect, as required for removal of appointed library board members. His complaint also argues that even if the anonymous ballot process was flawed, the commission cured any defect on Oct. 7 by publicly identifying the ballots and affirming the commissioners’ votes.
His motion for a preliminary injunction asks the court to restore him to the library board while the case proceeds, arguing that each day he remains off the board deprives both him and the public of the service of a lawfully appointed board member.
“What directions were commissioners given before they voted?”
District Court Judge Jason Conder
Representing Mossburg, attorney Thomas Szott argued Thursday that the central legal question is what constituted the commission’s official governmental action.
“The action,” Szott argued, “is the June public vote.”
According to Szott, the anonymous weighted ballots were merely an informal ranking mechanism used to identify commissioners’ preferences before the legally significant action occurred in open session.
After the ballot results were announced June 24, Vice Chairman Mike Jones moved to appoint Mossburg and Wetzel, Commissioner Clarence Thomas seconded the motion, and commissioners unanimously approved it.
Jones testified that commissioners retained the discretion to reject that motion.
“Absolutely,” Jones said when asked whether commissioners could have voted no.
Szott argued Jones’ testimony demonstrated the public vote was not merely ceremonial.
“The commissioners had the opportunity to change their minds,” he said. “Meaning this is not just a formal rubber stamp of whatever happened in the ballots.”
Heart of the case
Because the official action occurred publicly, Szott argued, there was no Public Meetings Act violation requiring correction. Even if the anonymous ballots were improper, he maintained, they were not themselves governmental action and therefore could not invalidate the subsequent public vote.
Throughout the hearing, however, Conder repeatedly pressed both attorneys on whether that conclusion depended on how commissioners understood the weighted ballots.
“What directions were commissioners given before they voted?” the judge asked. “Doesn’t that matter?”
Conder questioned whether commissioners may have understood the weighted ballot results themselves to determine the appointments, with the later public vote simply formalizing a decision already reached.
Szott acknowledged the importance of the question.
“That’s the heart of the case, for sure,” he replied.
Conder returned repeatedly to that issue, saying he needed to review the June 24 meeting video to determine exactly what commissioners were told before casting their ballots.
The county, represented by attorney Katye Ames, argued that the anonymous weighted ballots effectively decided the appointments before the public vote, rendering the June 24 action void under the Public Meetings Act.
She characterized the subsequent public vote as “a rubber stamp” of decisions already reached privately.
According to Ames, commissioners recognized the legal problem after receiving a September 2025 letter questioning the appointment process.
The remedy
She argued the Oct. 7 meeting, during which commissioners publicly signed the previously anonymous ballots, did not sufficiently cure the defect because it simply reaffirmed the earlier decision.
Instead, she said, the Oct. 21 revote satisfied the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority, which allows public bodies to cure Public Meetings Act violations through “a new and substantial reconsideration” conducted in compliance with the law.
“The remedy here,” Ames said, “is to then fix it by holding a public meeting and actually taking appropriate action to do what you’re trying to do. That’s exactly what the board did here.”
Conder spent considerable time questioning both attorneys about Gronberg v. Teton County Housing Authority, repeatedly asking what would constitute the “substantial reconsideration” required under that decision.
At one point, he asked Ames what he would actually see on the October recordings, demonstrating meaningful reconsideration rather than another procedural formality. Ames responded that commissioners publicly voted candidate by candidate and ultimately reached a different result, arguing that the different outcome itself suggested genuine reconsideration.
Szott disagreed, arguing that the county was attempting to graft additional requirements onto Gronberg that the supreme court never imposed. He maintained that because commissioners originally reached their decision without extended public deliberation, the law did not require a more elaborate process to cure any defect.
The hearing also focused on Jones’ testimony about the October revote itself. Initially, Jones testified there had been no separate finding declaring the June appointments void. Later, after Conder noted an apparent inconsistency in his testimony, Jones clarified that he believed commissioners effectively accomplished both actions simultaneously.
“I believe we did it in one action, whereas by taking the new vote, we were declaring it void,” Jones testified.
Beyond the legal questions, Conder repeatedly expressed concern about the practical consequences for the library board while the litigation remains unresolved. He noted that whichever side ultimately prevails, the board faces uncertainty over whether actions taken during the disputed appointment period might later need to be revisited.
“The poor library board,” he remarked. “One side is going to think I’m wrong. One side is going to appeal … and the board, the whole darn time, is going to say, ‘Man, we’ve been voting on all these things. We may have to vote again.'”
The hearing also addressed Mossburg’s request for expedited consideration.
Szott argued that allowing the litigation to proceed under a normal timeline could effectively deprive his client of meaningful relief if his would-be-three-year library board term expires before the case is resolved.
Conder acknowledged the concern but cautioned that no immediate ruling should be expected.
“I will work it as fast as I can,” he said, noting the court’s existing calendar and the need to review the meeting recordings before deciding the pending motions. “You’re not going to have an answer this week. You’re not going to have an answer next week.”
Before adjourning, Conder complimented both attorneys on their arguments and reiterated that he would review the record before issuing written decisions on the preliminary injunction, the county’s motion to dismiss and Mossburg’s request for summary judgment.
