Did Ken Witt violate Colorado Election Law?

Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act prohibits government agencies from urging “electors to vote in favor of or against any”..”Local ballot issue” (read the specific section of the law here). Read what Ken Witt wrote in the September 20th newsletter to parents about the upcoming vote on the sales tax issue, and decide for yourself if he’s following the law.

Nearby D20 faced something similar…the board was expressing opinions on a ballot issue voters are facing down there, promoting intervention by the Secretary of State.

UPDATE – Witt did it again in the 10/4 newsletter to families, shown below.

Peter Greene: Will Colorado Voters Be Wise Enough to Oppose This Ballot Measure? | Diane Ravitch’s blog

Peter Greene examines a proposed amendment to the state constitution in Colorado and its whacko implications. He urges voters to say NO. He writes: While other states are stumbling over constitutional language that aims public dollars at public schools (e.g. South Carolina and Kentucky), voucher fans in Colorado have proposed a constitutional amendment that comes up for a…
— Read on dianeravitch.net/2024/09/23/peter-greene-will-colorado-voters-be-wise-eniugh-to-oppose-this-ballot-measure/

Colorado Supreme Court will review judicially created doctrine that lets public bodies ‘cure’ open meetings law violations – Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

The “cure” case concerns a 2022 open meetings law violation by the Woodland Park school board, which considered a memorandum of understanding with a charter school under a vague “BOARD HOUSEKEEPING” agenda item.

A district court judge initially granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the board to “clearly, honestly and forthrightly” list future agenda items pertaining to the charter school. But the judge and the Court of Appeals later rejected plaintiff Erin O’Connell’s argument for the awarding of attorney fees because the board “effectively cured the prior violation” by discussing and voting on the MOU at a subsequent public meeting.
— Read on coloradofoic.org/colorado-supreme-court-will-review-judicially-created-doctrine-that-lets-public-bodies-cure-open-meetings-law-violations/

Christian Conspiracy Conference Takes on Globalists, Transgender People, and Election Fraud

CTR recently obtained an audio recording of Transform Colorado’s July 16 event in Del Norte, where speakers Richard Harris and William Federer encouraged the audience to support their conservative political agenda while indulging in wild conspiracies.
— Read on coloradotimesrecorder.com/2024/07/christian-conspiracy-conference-takes-on-globalists-transgender-people-and-election-fraud/63274/

Project 2025’s Plan to Eliminate Public Schools Has Started | TIME

Concerned about shrinking enrollments and budget crises, district leaders conclude that they must close schools, often without any evidence or analysis that it would save money—and, indeed, it hasn’t been shown to save money unless coupled with mass layoffs. They hire consultants who come up with “utilization” rates and then recommend closing schools with the lowest rates to “rightsize” the district—their euphemism for their misguided belief that school facility usage should be guided by arbitrary numbers instead of meeting communities where they are.
— Read on time.com/7001264/project-2025-public-school-closure/

Colorado Supreme Court will review judicially created doctrine that lets public bodies ‘cure’ open meetings law violations – Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

A district court judge initially granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the board to “clearly, honestly and forthrightly” list future agenda items pertaining to the charter school. But the judge and the Court of Appeals later rejected plaintiff Erin O’Connell’s argument for the awarding of attorney fees because the board “effectively cured the prior violation” by discussing and voting on the MOU at a subsequent public meeting.
— Read on coloradofoic.org/colorado-supreme-court-will-review-judicially-created-doctrine-that-lets-public-bodies-cure-open-meetings-law-violations/

What if it Were Your Student? | Guest column

From the 7/17/2024 Courier:

If the election’s over, why keep talking about the school board?

There’s been a high price paid—starting with the then-traitorous signatures on the Declaration of Independence, and later in blood — for us not only to vote, but manage the gift of elected leaders, our collective taxes.

Responding to a director’s question at the June BOE about bussing students to and from school, the superintendent reported transportation was completely state-reimbursed. This error prompted Colorado Open Records Agreement (CORA) requests from one citizen, who provided documentation to the superintendent. The superintendent admitted the error, restating his commitment to provide transportation to all district students. I wholeheartedly support this.

But there’s a catch.

Student transportation in 22-23 cost WPSD $1,230,940 (per CDE). The state reimbursed $238,137, collected transportation fees were $13,035 —leaving $979,768 to be covered by state-provided per-pupil funding. At the time, 1,677 attended our five traditional schools; the remaining 300 attended Merit Academy. (Merit was in the district, but transportation wasn’t offered.)

That nearly $1 million balance has been paid only from our district’s traditional-school per-pupil allotment. That’s $584/student, all students not just bussed students, from an amount also intended for building, administration, teacher salaries, the works.

But let’s watch our math. For the 23-24 year the district began including transportation for Merit–only asking fund participation of the $100/family asked of all bus-utilizing families. Their reasoning: Merit Academy’s transportation did not require an additional stop. But it will in 2024-2025.

To be clear, the traditional 1,422 students paid for the bussing of 1,820 students.

For 24-25, MA again will not be asked to pay their share of busing costs.

This year, traditional enrollment is projected to lower; MA is projected to be higher as they add preschool and 11th grade. Yet the nearly $1 million transportation costs will only be divided among educational funds for the traditional schools.

If MA paid their share of district bussing, the traditional schools gain at least $214,124.

Which would go a long way to paying teachers—and students—more of what they deserve. (What if that traditional student was your own?)

CORA-requested information shows leadership from MA pursuing their fair share of grant funding—suggesting even though budgets were set, they could be revised.

Should MA, in kind, pursue their share of transportation costs? Some argue, truthfully, that district schools receive funding that MA does not. Yet MA is eligible as well for grants and waivers unique to charter schools.

It’s but one example among many of preferential treatment of one school by a BOE that is charged with looking fairly to the interest of all students, all schools.

What is the honorable response from all parties? Should district costs be shared among all its beneficiaries? Should those continuing to present similar issues, finding themselves ignored, remain silent? Should traditional students’ blindly trust this Board?

But more importantly, how could we as a community come together with facts—indivisible, toward justice for all?

Carol Greenstreet