Colorado agriculture manager faces discipline after dispute over federal grant report and DEI training

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

A Colorado Department of Agriculture manager who challenged training language in a federally tied pest survey report now faces possible discipline after an internal investigation concluded he “more likely than not” misrepresented the document.

The dispute follows earlier RMV reporting that raised questions about DEI-related training references appearing in a report tied to a USDA cooperative agreement.

The issue grew out of a 2025 CAPS Infrastructure Accomplishment Report tied to a USDA cooperative agreement. In one section, the document lists training entries including “Equity and Diversity” and “Inclusive Leadership.”

CDA says Rich Guggenheim shared a screenshot of what it describes as a draft report and wrongly portrayed it as evidence that the department was using federal funds for DEI programs. Guggenheim says the document was part of the reporting process and that he raised concerns internally before the conflict escalated.

The dispute now lands at a March 12 Rule 6-10 meeting, where agency leaders are expected to decide whether Guggenheim will face discipline.

What the CAPS report actually shows

CAPS—short for Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey—is a federally supported program used by states to track invasive pests that can damage crops and disrupt agricultural trade.

The report documents coordination work supporting pest detection surveys across Colorado. In its training section, the document lists activities completed during the reporting period, including:

“Training: CLEAR Training, Equity and Diversity, cyber security, ESRI, Inclusive Leadership, Franklin Covey.”

Annual CAPS accomplishment reports from Colorado are publicly archived through the Colorado State Publications Library. Those reports follow a consistent format that identifies the cooperative agreement number, reporting period and the program coordinator responsible for the report.

Earlier reports include the same coordinator contact fields, listing the employee’s name, agency affiliation and government work phone and email.

Those archived reports go back multiple years and document Colorado’s participation in the CAPS program.

What the investigation alleges

The department’s investigation concluded it was “more likely than not” that Guggenheim provided information for the RMV article and misrepresented the CAPS document.

RMV reached out to Deputy Commissioner Jordan Beezley, Division Director Wondirad Gebru and HR Director Ruth DeCrescentis for comment about the report, the investigation and the department’s allegations. None responded before publication.

According to the report, “The article included a screenshot of a draft report containing [an employee’s] name and work contact information and misrepresented the report as evidence that CDA is using USDA funds for DEI programs.”

Investigators also reviewed a Nov. 6 managers meeting in which Guggenheim wrote “DEI on Steroids” in a Google Meet chat during a discussion about an Inclusive Leadership training program.

Plant Industry Division Director Wondirad Gebru, who led the meeting, wrote in his incident report that the remark briefly disrupted the discussion but that the meeting continued and concluded afterward.

The investigation similarly described the exchange as lasting several minutes before the meeting resumed.

The report evaluates workplace conduct surrounding the meetings but does not assess whether the underlying dispute about federal grant reporting violated federal policy.

Guggenheim disputes the findings

Guggenheim sharply disputes the department’s claim that the document cited in the article was merely a draft template.

The investigation report relies on testimony from the employee who prepared the document but does not independently verify the submission history within the federal EasyFedGrant reporting system.

“That document that you have that they’re saying was a draft was not a draft,” he said in an interview. “That is the document that was submitted for approval in Easy Fed Grants.”

Guggenheim said he raised concerns internally when he first saw the training references in the report.

“It was me who kicked that document back and said, no, you need to change this,” he said.

Guggenheim said his role carries responsibility for federal reporting tied to the program.

“I’m a signatory on several federal grants,” he said. “I have a fiduciary responsibility to raise these concerns.”

Guggenheim also points to what he describes as inconsistent enforcement of workplace standards.

In a separate January staff meeting, he said a subordinate responded to his announcement of a White House invitation with a profanity directed at President Trump. Guggenheim said HR later warned that formally disciplining the employee could be viewed as retaliation since the department had already opened an investigation into his conduct.

Guggenheim said that in earlier incidents HR told him to document and deal with disruptive behavior from employees. The different response this time, he argues, suggests workplace rules are not applied the same way in every case.

Public records show similar information

The investigation acknowledged that the screenshot referenced in the article contained work contact information for a state employee but noted the information would likely be accessible to the public because the employee works for a public agency.

RMV found that to be the case.

Archived CAPS survey accomplishment reports available through the Colorado State Publications Library go back several years and include the same coordinator fields, listing the employee’s name, agency affiliation and government work phone and email.

Those reports are the finalized annual filings tied to the USDA cooperative agreements behind the CAPS program, and they follow the same basic format as the infrastructure report referenced in the investigation. 

At the bottom of each report is a disclosure noting the information is provided under federal grant reporting rules referenced in 7 CFR 3016.40 and 7 CFR 3019.51.

Earlier disciplinary action

Documents obtained by RMV show the dispute did not emerge in isolation.

In February 2024 the department issued Guggenheim a corrective action after complaints about a post on his personal X account in which he described how he might handle a probationary employee as a manager. The post referenced his role as a manager and was made in the context of an online debate involving gender identity policies.

According to the corrective action letter, the department said the post inaccurately described how termination decisions are handled in state government and conflicted with CDA’s social media policy. 

The letter states that managers do not have unilateral authority to dismiss employees and points to state personnel rules that prohibit terminations based on protected classes, including gender identity.

The department interpreted Guggenheim’s comment—made on his personal social media account during an online debate—as describing how he might act in his role as a state manager.

The corrective action did not affect his pay or job status, but the department required him to remove the post and repeat communication training he had previously completed.

Support from inside the department stays private

Guggenheim said the case reflects deeper disagreements inside the agency over federal grant oversight and the consequences for employees who challenge decisions.

After the story broke, one CDA employee reached out privately to support Guggenheim but said speaking publicly could put their job at risk.

Guggenheim received the message anonymously and any possibly identifying information was withheld to protect their position.

Why Guggenheim says he pushed back

Guggenheim said his concerns are rooted in the role the agency plays in supporting Colorado agriculture.

“Farmers and ranchers depend on these programs,” he said. “These federal grants are supposed to help export the commodities they grow.”

He said the conflict ultimately raises questions about how the public is served.

“The state’s credibility with the taxpayers is what’s at stake,” Guggenheim said, pointing to the role of federal funding in the program.

The report itself notes that other decision-makers reviewing the same information could reach different conclusions.

What comes next on March 12

CDA has scheduled a Rule 6-10 meeting for March 12, when agency leaders are expected to decide whether Guggenheim will face discipline. Possible discipline could range from corrective action to termination.

Guggenheim said he does not intend to back off, and added, “It’s the right thing to do.”

“This is going to protect Colorado, protect our producers—and protect our freedom and liberty.”