Attorneys file motions in Knisley case

“The Constitution of the State of Colorado and allied statues gave Ms. Peters plenary power over Ms. Knisley hiring, firing and discipline,” Knisley’s attorney, Scott Reisch wrote in his motion to dismiss the case.

“It appears defendant wishes to turn this straightforward case into an election integrity morass and a trial about the underlying harassment claims,” responded Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein and one of his deputies, Jonathan Mosher. “But neither of those subjects is relevant here.”

At issue is whether the county has the authority to place Knisley on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal personnel investigation into numerous complaints from office employees that she created a hostile work environment.

Initially, Knisley was placed on leave Aug. 23 after Human Resources complaints were filed, and an investigation into them was in its beginning stages.

After receiving legal advice that her suspension “was invalid,” Knisley returned to the clerk’s office on Aug. 25, when she again was escorted out of the office, Reisch wrote. As a result, prosecutors filed felony burglary and misdemeanor cybercrime charges against her.

Reisch argues those charges should be dismissed, saying Knisley’s due-process rights were violated.

“There have been no hearings and Ms. Knisley has received no documentation related to her suspension,” Reisch wrote. “This is atypical of a disciplinary action taken against a Mesa County employee and contrary to the ‘employment policies of the county.’ ”

Mosher, however, said Knisley was informed via an Aug. 23 letter saying that she was being suspended for “inappropriate, unprofessional conduct in the workplace.”

Still, she was not immediately suspended when the complaints were filed, Mosher wrote. That only occurred after she made attempts to block witnesses from cooperating with the investigation.

“Defendant then attempted to prevent one or more employees in her chain of command from cooperating with the Mesa County Human Resources investigation into the claim of workplace harassment,” Mosher wrote. “It was at this point that she was placed on administrative leave and told she could not return to the workplace or conduct Mesa County business.”

Mosher also wrote that Knisley’s attorneys are trying to make the case against her more about Peters’ authority to oversee her employees and separate investigations into election security, saying that’s not what the charges are about.

He wrote that, like Peters, Knisley has signed several documents acknowledging that she is subject to the county’s HR manual, regardless of being part of a constitutional office separate from the county commissioners.

“In fact, defendant has impliedly acknowledged the authority of Mesa County’s HR Department by accepting benefits, sick leave, vacation and her salary itself,” Mosher wrote. “Therefore, she should be estopped from claiming that the HR Department has no authority relevant to her position.”

The case is set to go to trial in late May, but Reisch is trying to get it moved to a different jurisdiction because of pretrial publicity.

Prosecutors, however, say Knisley’s case hasn’t received anywhere close to the same publicity that Peters’ case has.

As a result, Mosher filed a separate motion to determine the scope of Knisley’s trial earlier this month “to prevent this case from devolving into a foray into irrelevant matters,” such as a separate criminal probe into Peters and others over election security, something that is the subject of a grand jury investigation and an FBI probe.

“From a factual and legal perspective — as opposed to an emotional one — this case has nothing to do with Tina Peters at all, which should put to rest the publicity concerns discussed in defendant’s motion for change of venue,” Mosher wrote. “This trial can and should be conducted without so much as the mention of Tina Peters’ name.”