Durango council interviews two candidates and directs city attorney to negotiate with Beth Padilla

Durango City Council on June 18 interviewed two finalists for the city’s municipal court judge vacancy and, after meeting in executive session, directed the city attorney to negotiate employment terms with one candidate, Beth Padilla.

The special meeting began with interpretation logistics and a land acknowledgment before the council asked the same initial questions of each candidate to ensure parity. Padilla, who the record shows has served as a municipal court judge in Cortez since 2021 and as a backup judge in Durango since 2024, described a court practice built around specialty programs she called outreach or wellness courts and said municipal judges have flexibility to tailor programs to local needs.

"I have been a municipal court judge since 2021, at the city of Cortez, and I'm a backup judge here in Durango since 2024," Padilla said, summarizing her municipal-court experience and explaining she used community partnerships and guidance from national organizations to build an outreach court that emphasizes treatment and case management rather than repeated short jail stays.

Padilla told council she prioritizes speedy-trial requirements when setting dockets and that in her practice monetary bonds have been rare: "less than 5 times" in the five years she has served. She said bench warrants are sometimes necessary for people with long criminal histories who repeatedly fail to appear, but she prefers graduated approaches — show-cause hearings, letters from clerks, or connecting defendants to local services — for lower-risk cases.

The other finalist, Dave Perron, introduced himself as director of compliance and community standards at his college and framed adjudication as an educational and restorative process. Perron described experience managing student-conduct processes and said municipal courts should balance efficient case processing with opportunities for remediation and community-based solutions.

Councilors repeatedly emphasized two priorities during both interviews: preserving and expanding the court’s specialty-court work that addresses repeat, low-level offenses and improving metrics and communication so the council can monitor program results. Several said they wanted continuity with existing programs while still leaving room for innovation, and asked how each finalist would measure success beyond simple recidivism counts.

Following the interviews, a councilor moved to convene an executive session "as permitted by CRS 24-6-402(4)(e) and (f)" to discuss selection and negotiation strategy. The council voted to go into executive session. After reconvening, a motion to instruct the city attorney to negotiate employment terms with Beth Padilla passed by roll call vote; the city will return any agreed contract terms to the council for formal approval before an appointment is finalized.

A council member stated the motion this way: "We are going to instruct the city attorney to go through negotiations with Miss Beth Padilla within the parameters that we discussed in executive session." The council recorded the motion as approved and listed the members voting in favor.

The council did not make a formal appointment at the June 18 meeting; it directed the city attorney to negotiate and report back. The meeting adjourned after the council thanked both candidates for participating.

What happens next: the city attorney will attempt to negotiate terms with Padilla; any finalized contract or appointment will require council review and a subsequent vote.