Some months after Ken Witt took a ‘full time’ job here in WPSD, his other employer, ERBOCES, cut his salary to reflect the part-time effort he was going to be putting into that. Well, they reversed that in their May 2024 board meeting. Ken Witt’s ERBOCES salary is back to the full base amount, PLUS he gets a 5% cost of living increase, PLUS he gets a 10% bonus. Scroll to the end of the meeting minutes here to read the details for yourself. So now Ken Witt is back to milking the taxpayers for two full-time salaries (ERBOCES executive director, and WPSD superintendent), plus generous benefits and bonuses.
If you’ve been following this blog, you’ll know I’ve been hounding the board and Witt about transportation cost sharing for over a year now (read part 1, part 2, and part 3 if you need to get up to speed on this). I believe it’s unfair to not ask Merit Academy to pay a proportionate share of this cost, and when I’ve confronted the board, I’m met with either silence or denial and spin.
I first pointed this out to Witt and the board in May of 2023 both in public comment at a board meeting and via email, but did not receive any constructive feedback. In my email, I said,
“parent fees, mentioned to be $50 per child, only cover approximately 1.3% of the total cost, and this is expected to rise slightly next year. The state contributes around 15% towards the total cost, leaving the remaining burden to be shouldered by the General Fund of the five traditional public schools. Astonishingly, Merit Academy has not been asked to share this cost, which is undeniably unfair.”
In the May 10 board meeting where I talked about this in public comment, the board broke with their own rules and replied to the concerns I had raised, and Witt said,
“…every student and every family in Woodland Park pays the same amount to ride those busses…”…which totally ignored my point about where the bulk of the money for this service was coming from.
We saw this topic come up again in the 6/12/2024 board meeting, when Witt gave the budget presentation to the board (our CFO’s last day was in the weeks prior to this). When talking about transportation, Witt said, “…our transportation costs are fully covered by state reimbursement”, and went on to explain that the transportation fund was for transportation to and from the school, and all activity, extracurricular, and sports transportation costs were covered by fees and the general fund.
The thing is, he’s wrong. As I had pointed out to him back in 2023, the state only provides a small portion of the actual cost of transporting students to and from the school. He’s stuck to his story this whole time, but in the past year, I’d learned much more about school finance and was able to challenge him after the meeting, via email. I was able to point to actual expenses recorded in our General Ledger which showed how some of the monthly charges for transportation were charged to the transportation fund, but the majority was being charged to the General Fund. Further, I was able to show the worksheet used for calculation of the state reimbursement the previous year, which further shows how the state reimburses only a small amount of the actual cost. Faced with these facts, he finally admitted he was wrong, saying “So, simply stated, approximately one third of the to and from school transportation was covered by the state-provided funds (accounted in Fund 25), and two-thirds were not covered by the state-provided funds (accounted in Fund 10). I apologize for the error.” (I think the one-third is high but it’s in the ballpark so no need to dwell on that).
Why does this matter? As enrollment in Merit Academy grows and enrollment in the public schools declines, the per-pupil cost of daily transportation services is increasing, while total revenue into that General Fund decreases (due to declining enrollment). This reduces the money available for teacher salaries, by hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s just another way that Witt and this board are providing preferential treatment to Merit Academy, and sabotaging the other public schools.
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.
HB24-1039, recently signed into law by Governor Polis, requires schools to abide by a student’s wish to be called a name which may be different from their legal name but reflects their gender identity. Or to look at it another way, it advances LGBTQ+ rights for students.
Not surprisingly, Ken Witt, Brad Miller, and their allies in the Woodland Park school board freaked out and at the 5/8 board meeting, issued a resolution which, well, doesn’t do much more than state the obvious, that they are required to draft a policy that complies with the law. Their resolution can be read below (I cut out the signature section just to save space here):
Note point 2 in the resolution though, notification of parents. This is similar to the unwritten currently policy, explained to staff last August by board attorney and conservative education reform activist Brad Miller. Board director Barkley asked some excellent questions in the board meeting about this point, expressing concern about how that information would be communicated and that it would be best done in person with a counselor present. It remains to be seen whether the policy ultimately includes this.
As the board discussed this resolution, director David Rusterholtz, not present but calling in remotely, launched into a pretty offensive tirade about parent and even teacher rights in these cases, totally dismissing the rights of the young adults facing these decisions (you can listen to that here).
Following the meeting, Superintendent Ken Witt sent an email to districts across the state, seeking to rally support for his bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ position:
Kudos to Summit School District superintendent Tony Byrd for this well written response:
I’ve never seen this movie, so did some research:. Here’s what Common Sense Media had to say (great website for parents to learn how movies might affect kids, by the way):
Overall, this movie is an unforgettable history lesson about soldiers who transcended the profound racism and ignorance of their time to find dignity, courage, valor, and self-respect when given the opportunity to prove their worth.
IMDB has a great list to other reviews published about the movie if you’d like more perspectives.
In August of 2023, the WPSD cut a check to Merit Academy for $270,155 in money from the ESSER III grant the district received from the federal government (this was COVID relief funds). I believe this meets the definition of fraud, as I’ll outline below.
The WPSD budget for the 2022-2023 school year (fiscal year 23, or FY23) – allocated all ESSER money to be spent on the five ‘traditional’ public schools. None was allocated to go to Merit Academy.
Merit FY23 budget didn’t include any ESSER grant money (in fact, there’s only $15,273 in federal money listed)
Money moving from the WPSD to Merit Academy is documented in a monthly ‘flowthrough’ spreadsheet – these monthly spreadsheets never showed any ESSER grant money.
On 1/31/23, Merit headmaster Gwynn Pekron reached out to Del Garrick requesting ESSER grant money; she was told that all money had been allocated for FY23, and that Merit could request money in FY24 if they wished (click here to read the email exchange).
In early June, Merit Academy again reached out to the WPSD about ESSER grant money, requesting money from FY24 (as previously suggested by Del). However, the FY24 budget passed by the board on June 14th showed $858,241 in ESSER grant money, none of which was allocated to go to Merit Academy.
On June 30th, 2023, Merit Academy submitted an invoice to the WPSD requesting $270,155 in ESSER grant money. That invoice was processed and paid in August 2023 (presumably, the delay was due to the district being closed for summer break).
As Merit had not budgeted to receive any ESSER money, they created multiple ledger entries on 6/30/2023 to retroactively justify the expense of the ESSER grant money (click here).
One consequence of this process was that the WPSD started the year with an inflated grant balance, that caught up to the district in January. In January of 2024, middle school parents received an email that an after school academic assistance program was being cut immediately; we were told it was due to a lack of funds to continue the program (funds were quickly reallocated to continue this program). Data obtained from a CORA request showed the ESSER grant fund was already grossly overdrawn, and the budget for that had been slashed from the original $858,241, to now only $523,524 (that difference, $334,717, is greater than the $270,155 that went to Merit in August and is as yet unexplained).
When I asked the board of education about this, director Kimbrell told me, “We were required to include Merit in the allocation of ESSER funds but the prior staff did not include them in the FY22-23 budget even though it was against the law not to.” The CDE’s website does not support the claim that it’s against the law not to include Merit (scroll to the bottom of that link).
So in summary, the board never approved any ESSER grant money to go to Merit Academy, in either year. This substantial sum of money was allocated to be spent on the other schools. Instead of going through the proper channels of including this in a budget (which then allows the public to be aware of how this money is being spent), the district operated outside of board overview and negotiated this directly with Merit Academy. The board approved a budget for FY24 which had inaccurate fund balances as a result. The WPSD deceived the public about where this money was being spent, by not only never including it in any budget, but purposefully publishing a FY24 budget that showed money to be spent in the district that didn’t actually exist (I believe this can best be described as fraud).
There’s another side to this that warrants further investigation. Merit Academy started life as a contract school under ERBOCES, NOT the Woodland Park School District. ERBOCES awarded some ESSER grant money to Merit Academy for the previous fiscal year, FY22 (this is the $10,845.60 number you see in the general ledger screenshot linked above). The question I have is, how did the state and federal governments determine the amount of ESSER grant money to award to the WPSD? If they based this calculation on the number of pupils in the district, it’s clear that Merit Academy was not part of the district at the time of ESSER grant money calculation…did ERBOCES receive extra ESSER grant money that should have been transferred to WPSD when Merit Academy was absorbed into the district in the 2022-2023 school year?
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: “
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
