A missing email and a federal paper trail: Colorado weighs discipline in Guggenheim case

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Rich Guggenheim says an email exists that would end his case.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture says it does not.

The dispute centers on a message Guggenheim says was sent to him in early December by Gabriel Leverance, a grant accountant at CDA, instructing him to approve a USDA-funded Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey report—the report he had previously kicked back and now at the center of the discipline the department is weighing against him.

Guggenheim says he requested records twice under CORA that he believes should have included the email. At an April 15 disciplinary hearing, he told the department’s deputy commissioner:

“I know it exists, because I’m the recipient of that email, and I’m not getting it in a CORA request.”

On April 22, CDA Director of Communications Olga Robak responded to Rocky Mountain Voice’s request for comment.

“CDA has provided all responsive documents to Mr. Guggenheim and we did not have an email matching that description in our records,” she wrote. On four additional questions—including the timeline for a decision, the department’s characterization of the report as a draft and the cost of Guggenheim’s leave—she declined to comment, citing the ongoing personnel matter.

Deputy Commissioner Jordan Beezley, who will decide whether to discipline Guggenheim, said on April 15 that a decision was likely “a couple weeks” away.

What began as a workplace dispute has spread across multiple agencies. The outcome may hinge on a single unresolved question: whether an email exists—and what it would show.

What the federal record shows

The disputed document is the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s 2025 Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey Performance Report, part of a federally funded program tracking invasive pests affecting agriculture.

The report became a story in December, when RMV published a screenshot showing the training section listed “Equity and Diversity” and “Inclusive Leadership” alongside technical training entries. 

Guggenheim provided the screenshot and argued the entries showed DEI programming embedded in a federally tied report in violation of President Trump’s Executive Order 14151, which directs federal agencies and grantees to end such programs “under whatever name they appear.”

The department’s response, through a February Employment Matters investigation, was that the document was a draft template and that Guggenheim misrepresented it.

The USDA’s ezFedGrants system shows a detailed submission history.

On November 1, State Survey Coordinator Aja Bos uploaded the report. On November 17, the system issued a reminder that the report was due December 1.

On December 4, Bos advanced the report to “Draft Pending Signature,” and Guggenheim marked it “Submitted.” USDA program specialist Elvir Tenic returned it the same day with the comment: “Report needs review and editing.”

On December 5, the report was again advanced and submitted. Tenic returned it on December 22 with the note “needs updating.”

On December 30, Bos advanced the report again. On January 7, 2026 Christi Kamath marked it “Submitted.” USDA accepted the report January 12.

The DEI training references remained in the report during Guggenheim’s submissions. They were removed before the January 7 resubmission.

Screenshot from the USDA’s ezFedGrants system shows the CAPS 2025 report moving through multiple submissions, federal review returns and final acceptance between November 2025 and January 2026.

Inside the April 15 meeting

The April 15 meeting was a continuation of a Rule 6-10 disciplinary hearing held March 12, which RMV reported on in advance on March 10.

What began as a conduct complaint had become a question of approval.

“I obtained the documentation showing that you approved the USDA CAPS 2025 report,” Beezley said.

Guggenheim did not dispute marking the report “Submitted.”

“As I was instructed to do,” he said.

One part of the department’s legal argument centers on Guggenheim’s failure to report internally. The original investigation centered on whether he was disruptive when he did.

Guggenheim said the email he believes would clarify that question was brief—“one or two lines”—and directed him to approve the report because the deadline was approaching. He said it was sent to him and Bos and would likely reference the CAPS grant.

He said he cannot access it because he is locked out of his state email account.

Guggenheim said his understanding of how CORA requests are handled comes in part from training provided to state employees by the Colorado Department of Law. “If it’s not worded specifically this way, you don’t give them that—even if you can read into the intent,” he said. “That’s not exactly what they asked for, so that’s not exactly what you give them.”

Beezley asked whether Guggenheim had raised concerns internally before approving the report. Guggenheim said he had not, adding that meetings where he could have escalated the issue were canceled after the November 6 incident.

The contradiction between the two hearings is what Guggenheim said troubles him most. “They went from saying you were being disruptive to now you’re not being disruptive enough,” he said in an April 22 interview.

An email CDA says does not exist

At the hearing, Guggenheim identified what he described as a key document.

An email, he said, sent to him and Bos in early December, instructing them to approve the report before the deadline.

“I know it exists,” he said. “Because I’m the recipient of that email.”

Beezley said he would search for it.

“I would love that evidence,” Guggenheim said.

A week later, the department responded to RMV that no such email exists in its records.

That contradiction now defines the case.

Guggenheim said the department’s position raises a separate concern. “If they’re able to produce that email for the investigation but not for the CORA request,” he said, “they’re actively using verbal gerrymandering and interpretation of a CORA request to get around complying with information the public has a right to see.” 

If the email exists, it could support Guggenheim’s claim that he approved the report under direction. If it does not, his defense remains unverified.

Guggenheim said, “I never delete emails,” and said he has been told state employees must keep emails for three years. He said he believes the message would still be retrievable if it exists within the department’s system.

A CORA request, fulfilled, closed and reopened

Guggenheim submitted a CORA request on December 29, 2025 seeking records related to the November 6 meeting and the investigation.

On January 12, the department estimated the request at more than 11 hours of work and quoted $426.77. Guggenheim paid that amount on January 23.

Records were provided January 29 and the request was closed the same day.

That afternoon, Guggenheim replied: “I spent almost $430 to get my own emails? Is there nothing from Ruth to other parties, or from Hollis to Ruth? Nothing from…?”

On February 20, the department acknowledged a “technical error” and said additional responsive records had not been delivered.

A second set of documents followed February 23, along with a Vaughn Index and affidavit listing records withheld under deliberative-process privilege. The affidavit states the release “would compromise the integrity of CDA’s pre-decisional investigations into personnel matters.”

The Vaughn Index does not list any email from Leverance.

Vaughn Index provided by CDA.

The finding, and what it does not address

The Employment Matters investigation concluded it was “more likely than not” that Guggenheim provided information for a news article and misrepresented a draft report.

The finding relied heavily on Bos’s account, which described the DEI entries as part of a template and not tied to funding.

But the investigation does not reconcile that account with the ezFedGrants timeline showing multiple submissions and federal returns for edits.

It also does not address whether including those entries in a federally tied report raised a compliance issue independent of how the document was later characterized.

On paid leave since February

Beezley placed Guggenheim on paid administrative leave February 9—four days after RMV’s second article on the case and four days after the department filed its motion to dismiss his whistleblower complaint.

The February 9 letter prohibits Guggenheim from communicating with CDA employees about the investigation, from accessing state systems and from entering agency property without approval.

RMV asked the department to provide the cost of that leave to taxpayers. Robak declined to comment.

During that time, Guggenheim has pursued the case across multiple state and federal channels, including filings with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which indicated the matter would be referred to the USDA Office of Inspector General.

At the State Personnel Board, the department has argued that Guggenheim’s claims fail because he did not first raise concerns internally and because the investigation itself does not constitute disciplinary action.

A decision, pending

Beezley said he would search for the email and issue a decision as soon as possible.

The department has now stated in writing to RMV that no such email exists.

Guggenheim has stated under questioning and in an interview that the email exists and that he received it.

What remains unresolved is the same question raised in the November meeting that started it all—whether Guggenheim’s conduct was the issue or whether the concerns he raised were addressed only after the report moved through multiple submissions and federal review.