Two Colorado representatives published a letter of concern Thursday about the Douglas County Board of Commissioners’ removal of general public comment from its meetings.

Reps. Brandi Bradley (R, Dist. 39) and Bob Marshall (D, Dist. 43), both of whom represent the county in the Colorado General Assembly, said that the board’s recent actions to limit public comment raises “constitutional and statutory” concerns.

“Public comment is not a mere procedural formality,” the pair wrote. “It is a core component of transparent governance … when access to that process is curtailed beyond what is necessary to maintain order and efficiency, it raises legitimate constitutional and statutory concerns and invites unnecessary legal scrutiny.”

The letter comes on the heels of a contentious week between Marshall and the board. On Tuesday, the two sides clashed over a proposition that would require all county businesses to report all suspected shoplifters within 96 hours of such an incident or else face a penalty as ruled by a court.

During his comments, Marshall urged the board to rethink the proposition and said that District Attorney George Brauchler and Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly had backtracked in their support over the “toxic” ordinance.

District 3 Commissioner Kevin Van Winkle responded by calling the allegation that the two did not support the proposal a “flat-out lie.”

The board’s recent decision to end its general public comment, a dedicated time during board meetings for community members to voice opinions on county matters not necessarily outlined in the meeting’s agenda, has brought on an added level of scrutiny for the conservative-leaning county south of Denver.

In August, while the county was debating whether to build a 500-acre sports complex in Sterling Ranch — a proposal that was approved by the board — former Douglas County Commissioner Lora Thomas criticized officials moving the project forward without adequate input from the community.

“(It) is being rushed without proper processes to include public comment,” Thomas said.

Marshall agreed with the notion.

“I don’t understand why in the world they would shut this down. They’ve shut down any comments on their social media from anyone, they just don’t want any public criticism,” Marshall said. “The big concern is if this is allowed to spread, and other counties are starting to look at it and say ‘wait, we don’t have to listen to people if we don’t want to?’ That’s a very bad precedent.”

When asked about whether he had a comment about the contents of the Thursday’s letter, board Chairman George Teal said he did not and was not presently interested in reconsidering the board’s decision.

“I’m always open to having the members of the board reconsider it,” Teal said before later adding “if only there was a state legislator that was concerned about this, and a bill could be introduced.”

In response to Teal’s comment, Marshall said that he’d need special permission to pursue a bill on the matter this legislative session.

Former Denver Gazette Reporter Noah Festenstein contributed to this report.