Category Archives: CORA requests

Capturing Kids Hearts – what does it cost?

UPDATE 5/30 – I’ve received updated general ledger information which shows three additional charges in this current fiscal year FY’24, bringing the total to $53,700 paid out of ESSER grant money, and $97,050 paid out of general fund 10 reserves (carryover from last year as per the specific budget resolution). No change to the conclusions in what I wrote below – Ken Witt lied to council about sales tax money being used for this.

For the current school year, the district implemented the Capturing Kids Hearts program, a social-emotional learning tool. People following this matter closely might be curious where the money is coming from, as in Ken Witt’s presentation to City Council on 5/16, he highlighted this as how sales tax money is spent on ‘innovation’ in the current fiscal year (’23-24 school year):

Another slide from his presentation showed the district was spending $80,000 on this innovation aspect in FY24 (when asked about the ‘other’, he said there currently are no examples of that nor have there ever been):

Just to be perfectly clear, his presentation to council was solely on how sales tax money is being spent by the district. So $80k on this Capturing Kids Hearts program could probably be considered an OK expense for that ‘innovative programing’ category of sales tax money expenses.

Except it wasn’t.

Sales tax money goes directly into the General Fund, which is fund 10. So when reviewing expenses, based on Ken Witt’s statement one would expect all Capturing Kids Hearts expenses to be charged to that fund. When reviewing the general ledger though (my data is only current as of 4/11, it’s possible new charges have been added), we see that $5,610 was spent on food service (for training events, presumably):

Then, $8,000 was spent from the general fund on software. That’s it for charges which could be tied to sales tax money. But that’s not the extent of charges related to this program. The bulk of the cost of Capturing Kids Hearts this year, $53,700 was paid for with ESSER grant money (aka, Federal Covid Relief funds). NOT sales tax money. Note fund ’22’ below (designated purpose grants), and grant number 4414 (the specific grant):

In other words, Ken Witt was not being truthful when he told City Council the district was spending $80k of sales tax money this year on innovation programs, of which only Captured Kids Hearts was named.

So for the current FY’24, where Witt says we’re spending $80,000 in sales tax money on Capturing Kids Hearts, at most we’ve only spent $13,610 – the rest came from a federal grant. But even that $13,610 is called into question when you look at the specific budget resolution passed for FY’24. This resolution authorizes expenditure of fund balances for specific purposes – or to word it differently, spending our reserve fund. The specific budget resolution for the current fiscal year, FY’24, authorizes spending $100,000 from our reserve fund – NOT sales tax – on Capturing Kids Hearts:

I mentioned my general ledger data is only current as of 4/11/2024 – new charges may have been added since. If that’s the case, and more than $13,610 has been spent, just keep in mind that the board authorized $100,000 of reserve funds to be spent on this program, so the district would have to exceed $100,000 in charges, to fund 10, in the current fiscal year for Ken Witt to be make the argument that the district is using any sales tax money on that program for this year.

If you’d like to view the invoices for details on the money paid to Capturing Kids Hearts, you can view them here (provided via CORA).

Looking at the previous fiscal year, FY’23 (school year ’22-23), we see when the district first paid Capturing Kids Hearts for the program, a $108,500 charge in June. This was charged to fund 10, the general fund, so it could be argued that the district used sales tax money in the previous fiscal year to pay for Capturing Kids Hearts.

So, the facts do not support Ken Witt’s claim that the district is spending sales tax money on Capturing Kids Hearts in the current fiscal year.

WPSD leadership emboldened by lack of oversight

After voters rejected change last fall, and with the Colorado Department of Education handicapped by no legal authority to actually provide any oversight, Ken Witt and the WPSD board of education seem to be growing bolder, knowing there’s no real accountability in Colorado.

Recently, in responding to a single CORA request of mine, I believe the WPSD:

  • Violated my rights under CORA
  • Limited my rights to public participation in a school board mtg
  • Admitted to violating Colorado Sunshine Law
  • Issued a sworn statement that is legally incorrect

Here’s the timeline of events:

3/8 – agenda published for 3/13 regular board meeting

3/8 – board packet emailed to board members

3/8 – CORA req #617 submitted for board packet for 3/13 mtg; district sent confirmation of receipt at 3:54PM 3/12

3/13 – board mtg gets postponed one week due to weather

3/13 – 11:06AM, district sends email that for CORA #617, “These materials are not available under CORA because they are protected under the deliberative process privilege.”

3/13 – 11:32AM, I sent an email reply: “You make a claim of deliberative process privilege; I request that my rights under C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(XIII) be respected. Per that section of Colorado law, I request “a sworn statement specifically describing each document withheld, explaining why each such document is privileged, and why disclosure would cause substantial injury to the public interest.” I also request that, per the same cited law, ” the custodian shall apply to the district court for an order permitting him or her to restrict disclosure.”

3/18 – The district sent a sworn statement signed by Superintendent Ken Witt, with these claims: “

  1. It is my opinion that the document is privileged under the deliberative process exception of CORA because it constitutes the confidential deliberations of the WPSD Board of Education which have not yet been released to the public or discussed in an open meeting.
  2. Disclosure of the document would cause substantial harm to the public interest because it would quell open and honest deliberations by members of the WPSD Board of Education when drafting, editing, and reviewing board packets prior to their public release.”

3/20 – the postponed 3/13 board mtg is held

3/21 – after several queries about the status of the district court order, I instead receive the results of my original CORA request #617. This exceeded the three day deadline the law requires them to provide a single document in. They never did get the court order as required, they just ran out the clock until it didn’t matter anymore.

Because the packet had been distributed to the board on 3/8 for use in a public meeting, it is not a protected document under 24-72-202(6.5)(c) – therefore it is subject to CORA.

I spoke in the public comment portion in the 3/20 mtg; not having access to the board packet prior to the mtg deprived me of the opportunity & right to provide comment relevant and based on information to be presented in the board meeting (knowing only general topics in the agenda).

The statements by Witt suggests a Sunshine Law violation, by saying there were ‘confidential deliberations’ outside of the public eye, that were the reason to withhold the document.

Ken Witt issues sworn statement which might violate both the Colorado Open Records Act and the Colorado Sunshine Law

The district found itself in a new position last week with a Colorado Open Records Act request. When the agenda for the 3/13/2024 board meeting went out on 3/8, I submitted a CORA request for the board packet for that meeting. These packets contain the reference materials to be presented in the board meetings; you can view the packet from the last board meeting here to get an idea. Under Colorado law requiring no more than a three-day turnaround for a request for a single document in the district’s possession, I thought this would result in me getting the board packet at least an hour before the actual meeting. Some districts make a habit out of providing board packets prior to regular meetings, as the CDE’s Board President Handbook even describes on page 12, so this request was not anything unusual.

As you know, weather prompted postponement of the meeting to the following Wednesday, 3/20. Instead of providing the board packet to me as required by law, the district sent me this message on the date the CORA request was due, 3/13:

These materials are not available under CORA because they are protected under the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process Privilege is a very specific legal term, defined in Colorado law as follows:

Records protected under the common law governmental or “deliberative process” privilege, if the material is so candid or personal that public disclosure is likely to stifle honest and frank discussion within the government, unless the privilege has been waived.

C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(XIII)

Is this a valid assertion? Colorado law section 24-72-202(6.5)(c) covers the definition of these work products, documents that would be not be accessible via CORA. In this case it’s quite clear, saying that work products specifically do NOT include:

(IV) Any materials that would otherwise constitute work product if such materials are produced and distributed to the members of a public body for their use or consideration in a public meeting or cited and identified in the text of the final version of a document that expresses a decision by an elected official.

24-72-202(6.5)(c)

These board packets are distributed to board members when the meeting agenda is sent out. In this case, that would be on 3/8. So by the time my CORA request was due on 3/13, the board packet had met the qualifications above and could not be considered a work product protected from disclosure.

Normally I’d hit a brick wall at this point, not interested in engaging in any legal action, especially for something as innocent-seeming as just a board packet that I know the district would release under CORA after the meeting has taken place. But by invoking ‘deliberative process privilege’, the district created a bit of a mess for themselves. The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition pointed me to some very interesting information about this legal term. Colorado law (see C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(XIII)) sets requirements for an entity to withhold documents, if the requestor knows the law and makes suitable requests. The first requirement is:

…the custodian shall provide the applicant with a sworn statement specifically describing each document withheld, explaining why each such document is privileged, and why disclosure would cause substantial injury to the public interest.

C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(XIII)

I requested such a statement, and here is what the district provided to me on 3/18/2024:

Ken Witt is claiming that the board packet “constitutes the confidential deliberations of the WPSD Board of Education”. However, the board isn’t allowed to deliberate outside of public, unless and executive session is called. That’s what the Colorado Open Meetings Law is all about. So it seems he’s violating Colorado Open Records Law by using a violation of the Open Meetings Law as his excuse?

Federal Covid relief grant sharing in WPSD

Interestingly, in the last fiscal year (ending June 30, 2023), the district made a last-minute transfer of $270,155 of COVID relief funds to Merit Academy. Merit submitted the invoice on 6/30/2023, though it wasn’t processed and paid until August. I can’t find any mention of it in the FY23 budget…you’ll note other passthrough money, like the sales tax revenue, is noted as “Charter school allocation”. It’s not clear why the district didn’t do the same for this federal grant money.

A look into district finances – Merit Academy revenue

The district documents all money going to Merit, and all money withheld, in their flowthrough spreadsheets. It’s interesting comparing last year to this year. Here are the two files to open and look at while reading this post:

April 2023 (this is the latest one I have for last fiscal year…scroll towards the end of this link)

August 2023

You’ll notice changes in the first section, revenue being directed to Merit. They’ve been given portions of more line items than before.

The Buyback Services section is where the largest changes can be found. Money withheld for administrative oversight has decreased from 5% to 0.8%. Buildings/grounds maintenance has decreased by 61%. Overall, Merit is paying $323,883.14 less in buyback services this year than last year. Note however that last year, they were being charged $150,000 for construction/renovation costs. It’s unknown if that amount covered everything done to the Middle School or not. So perhaps a more fair number to use in this comparison would be to say they’re paying $173,883.14 less in buyback services this year.

Also note that Merit is not paying the same proportion of transportation costs as the rest of the schools in the district. As for food service, while they’re participating in that program, there is no written agreement in place and no costs being shared with Merit (that program is mostly but not completely funded by the statewide free lunch program).

’23-24 preliminary enrollment numbers

It took a few CORA requests, but I finally have the preliminary enrollment numbers for our school district, as of the end of August. These are absolutely not final, it’s the count in early October that matters, but it’s a valid data point that shows where we’re starting this year at. I’ll update these numbers once the official October count is complete.

Since this is the first year of universal pre-K in Colorado, I’m excluding those numbers from each years’ comparison. Just focusing on Kindergarten through 12th grade. Also note, I’m using CDE data for previous years (download the ‘membership_grade_by_school’ files). Merit Academy has many students in their homeschool enrichment program, and the CDE counts those as 50% (for funding purposes). So for consistency, I’m applying the same 50% there (for ’23-24, they have 60 students in this program so that counts as 30 in the numbers below; they had 59 the previous year).

In summary, this is yet another year of declining enrollment in our school district, even considering the growth in Merit Academy.

’21-22’22-23’23-24
Traditional Public School enrollment174916761592
Total District Enrollment*203620071986
* – Merit was legally part of ERBOCS in ’21-22, not WPSD, but is being counted as WPSD for comparison here

Here’s the breakdown by school for the same time period. Merit has shown growth, the other schools are decreasing. Note the sharp drop in the Middle School for this year is largely due to moving 6th grade from that school to the three elementary schools.

This school board has consistently voted to boost Merit and ignore our traditional public schools, and these numbers reflect that. We continue to see declining overall district enrollment, too.

If you have concerns about me not including preschool in these numbers, here are the enrollment totals WITH preschool included:

’21-22’22-23’23-24
Traditional Public School enrollment183217911721
Total District Enrollment*211921222085
* – Merit was legally part of ERBOCS in ’21-22, not WPSD, but is being counted as WPSD for comparison here

Lastly, note that per CDE data, in the ’22-23 school year, 473 students in our district opted out, and went to schools in other districts. We don’t know what the numbers are for ’23-24 yet.

Continue reading →

Mental health services in the district

In case you missed it, last spring the district made huge cuts to the mental health services in our schools, refusing to reapply for grants that totaled about $1.2 million and paid for about fifteen jobs in our community. We ended up with some academic advisors in the high school (not licensed counselors), and Witt saying each school would have one counselor in it. Shortly before school started, they sent this email to parents:

WPSD has partnered with Mindsight Health, a mental health support service, to offer professional care and support for our students and in partnership with their families. 

Mindsight Health is a skilled team of highly trained mental health professionals passionate about school-based mental health services. Their mission aligns with our commitment to provide the best possible educational experience for our students, recognizing that the mental health of our students plays an important role in academic achievement. 

Partnering with Mindsight Health allows us to offer students and families mental health support services within our school systems. WPSD remains dedicated to ensuring parents are actively involved in seeking and receiving mental health support for their children. Mindsight Health professionals will be available to provide individual therapy to district students and can meet with their families to discuss how best to support their student. With this partnership, we aim to empower parents and guardians to engage with their child’s mental health needs, working hand in hand with WPSD and Mindsight Health professionals.

Additionally, we have dedicated space within our high school for Mindsight Health professionals to meet with students upon receiving parent or guardian consent. This private space will ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged between Mindsight Health professionals and the

students and families. Moreover, this service is accessible to WPSD students of district run schools that have a qualified need, with Mindsight Health first working with the family’s insurance to ensure coverage.

What sets Mindsight apart is its dedication to tailoring its services to meet the unique needs of each student. By carefully pairing students with a therapist whose skill set complements their individual needs, Mindsight ensures that every child receives personalized attention and the

most effective support possible.

To learn more about Mindsight and its services, please visit their website at www.joinmindsight.com.

For questions, please contact Kim Moore, CAO, at kmoore@wpsdk12.org.

We’ve looked into Mindsight, and they’re a small Colorado Springs based company with questionable experience. They specialize in these in-school mental health services so seem to be just part of the latest trend to privatize our schools. Founded two years ago, they are a very small company, with two people showing up on LinkedIn, and another co-founder not popping up there – and no information about their staff on their website. Despite that small size, they claim to be supporting 18 different schools in this area. I’ve heard rumors from district insiders that the Mindsight reps are not experienced (one said she is starting her course work, but hasn’t had a class yet), and that there are long wait lists (two months), and while I lack proof of those claims, it does seem plausible with the information they’ve made publicly available.

So, the district chose a small Colorado Springs based company to provide mental health services. Are there other companies that they should have considered as well? Absolutely…and one that instantly stands out is Bloom, a local company started by our former Mental Health Supervisor Laura Magnuson. She’s attracted some experienced staff to her business, and it’s located right here in Woodland Park. I was really curious why they chose Mindsight over our local option of Bloom, so I submitted a CORA request for any RFPs (Requests for Proposals) for mental health services…the response was, “”There are no documents responsive to this request.”

What did this no-bid deal with Mindsight involve? Another CORA request dug up the written agreement we have with Mindsight. I’ll include some bullet points below, but you can read the entire document for yourself at this link.

  • The agreement is for one person (or equivalent total support from multiple people) to support the district.
  • Mindsight may use interns for these services.
  • Both verbal and written permission from parents is required before initiating any mental health services.
  • Mindsight is not a ‘crisis response organization’
  • Mindsight will have access to student information, schools, and classrooms, as might be expected.
  • If Medicaid or private insurance are not applicable for a particular student, the district will pay the fees.
  • Travel expenses will be reimbursed at a rate of $30 per day.
  • Last but certainly not least – the initial term of the MOU is from August 1, 2022 through July 21,2023 (yeah, they wrote this for the wrong year).

WPSD BOE votes to give entire Middle School building to Merit Academy, and cut fees charged to Merit

The August 9th school board meeting contained a vote on changes to the Contract and the Facilities Usage Agreement with Merit Academy. The board did not read the changes, did not present them in the meeting, and did not make them publicly available prior to the meeting. Nevertheless, the board packet contained very detailed redlines of the proposed changes, as learned via a recent CORA request.

When you look at the actual changes, it becomes pretty obvious why the board hid this information. Their decision to move 6th grade out of the Middle School this past March created quite a stir…and if people realized what the board did for Merit, I suspect there’d be even more of an uproar. Here’s what the new FUA says:

As Merit grows, the new FUA gives them whatever space they need, with no regard for the 7/8th graders currently occupying that portion of the building. They’re currently expanding one grade level per year as each cohort moves up; they might add preschool in the future. The BOE put in place a legal agreement which will squeeze the 7/8th graders out of that building. More importantly though, they have not disclosed any plan for what will happen to the 7/8th grades currently in that building.

Here’s the currently floorpan for this ’23-24 school year:

On the financial side of things, the BOE gave Merit two sweet deals. First, Merit will no longer be asked to share the district facilities costs on a per-pupil basis. Instead, their share will be computed based upon the square footage they are using.

The district has unused building space, but Merit won’t have to help shoulder the cost of that – they get the benefit of using a district building rent-free, but get special treatment compared to the tenants (schools) of the other buildings. Second, their administrative withholding decreases from 5% to 3.5% (this is expected to give Merit about $61k, though final amount depends on pupil count).

Obtained via CORA, you can view the new Facilities Usage Agreement or the new Contract.

Resignation Letter from a Gateway teacher

With the gag order in place (policy KDDA), teachers have rightfully felt afraid to speak up. Every now and then though, we see one of them expressing their frustrating when (sadly) resigning…the latest was Rebecca Johnson, a teacher at Gateway for the last 10 years or so, who resigned last month. She emailed a very well-written and detailed letter as her resignation, and I finally obtained a copy via CORA. Please, read it for yourself to gain some insight into what our teachers have been going through in our district.

What’s going on with SROs in WPSD?

What’s going on with School Resource Officers (SROs) in Woodland Park schools? These have typically been Woodland Park police officers, providing a partial security presence at our schools. Last year, there were two SROs (I believe the school only paid for one, the cost of the other was on the city)…and by spring, both of those were no longer working as SROs in the district. With the board and superintendent eliminating the large mental health support program in our school district, parents have been justifiably concerned about the safety of our kids. David Illingworth and Ken Witt have repeatedly said that the city and sheriff are both unable to provide officers. CORA requests are casting doubt on this statement, as you’ll see below.

The question has been, what is the district’s plan for providing security to our students? Illingworth hinted at a plan in the works using private security in the April City Council meeting, and mentioned (time stamp 12:32 in this video) that the WPPD and Sheriff don’t have enough personnel to provide a full time officer in each of the six school (this is true). The board met in executive session with Sheriff Mikesell in the May 10th meeting to discuss security. The Sheriff does have his own private security company, so it’s been suspected the district would leverage that to help keep our kids safe – but no mention of this appeared in the budget in June.

What CORA requests have revealed is, reassuringly, the board DOES appear to have a plan in the works to have one security guard in each school (there is no indication that any plan has been finalized). There aren’t enough law enforcement officers in this small community to serve those roles (assuming one person per building), and it’s not clear at this point whether those roles will be entirely private security, or whether they’ll be a mix of private security and law enforcement officers. It’s also not clear what cost this will carry.

Dig deeper though and you see friction between our police department and Ken Witt. It seems to have started with the issue of plugging the ‘gap’ in SROs to close out the school year (though perhaps started earlier this year when the chief rejected the district’s request for police presence at all board meetings). On May 3rd, WP Police Chief Deisler offered officers on overtime three days a week to work as SROs, but the district didn’t take him up on that offer. Witt went on to spread incorrect information about that situation to a community member who had emailed him about their concerns (email link is below):

We were very disappointed when Chief Chris Deisler informed the school district this year that the WP PD no longer has the manpower to provide SROs given their law enforcement demands and limited personnel in Woodland Park.

Ken Witt, July 11, 2023

Chief Deisler replied to Witt:

Shortly after the announcement that Ofc. DeJesus was coming back to Patrol, I announced an internal lateral transfer “intent to apply” process for the now-vacant SRO position at WPHS since the final security plan for school safety and security had not been finalized for school year 23-24. Not one eligible police officer applied for this assignment. You can also see that in order to continue to support the school, I offered a city-paid overtime detail for three officers a week to be present at the campus to help get through end of the year at no cost to the District. No one at the school ever finalized this process with me.

WPPD Police Chief Deisler, July 12, 2023

If you read the entirety of the email exchange (obtained via CORA and can be read here), it’s pretty clear that Chief Deisler tried working with the district on this matter but the district did not engage him. Worse though, Ken Witt, in my opinion at least, has portrayed our local police department as uncooperative and unable to help, which is not the impression I get when I read the email from the Police Chief – quite the opposite, Chief Deisler actually seemed eager to help. It’s unknown why the district made the decisions they did about this.

While it’s reassuring that the board is still working on a security plan (Chief Deisler and Sheriff Mikesell appear to be collaborating on it), I hope that plan includes our local law enforcement officers, not just private security.

I encourage all community members to read the entirety of the email exchange for themselves.