ASD20 Bond Controversy: A Deep Dive into Transparency, Legality, and Leadership Failures
Academy District 20 (ASD20) has proposed an $83.14 million bond to fund significant district improvements. While at first glance, it appears to be a sound investment in the district's future, concerns over transparency, legality, and questionable leadership decisions have made this bond a point of contention. In this article, we’ll break down the critical components of the bond, explore the controversies surrounding it, and provide insights into why critics are urging voters to reject the measure.
Key Components of the Bond
The ASD20 bond proposal allocates funds across several significant areas:
- Rebuilding Air Academy High School: $49 million is designated to match a Department of Defense (DoD) grant for rebuilding Air Academy High School (AAHS). This school serves many military families, and the rebuild would include a Career and Technical Education (CTE) center open to all district students.
- District-Wide Safety and Health Improvements: $23 million is earmarked for non-charter schools to improve ventilation, security, and lighting in compliance with Colorado House Bill 23–1161.
- Charter School Allocations: Over $11 million would go to two charter schools, The Classical Academy (TCA) and New Summit Charter Academy (NSCA), for gym construction and classroom and lighting upgrades.
- No Tax Increase: The bond’s promotion emphasizes that it will not increase taxes but extend the current tax rate.
Focus Group Insights
A focus group of a mere 19 voters in a district with over 80,000 voters aimed to gauge voter sentiment on the bond in July 2024. However, the insights gathered revealed a disconnect between the bond’s goals and public perception.
- Confusion About Bond and Mill Levy Override: Many participants mistakenly believed bond funds could be used for teacher salaries, a function of Mill Levy Overrides (MLOs), not bonds. This misunderstanding risks misinforming voters about what the bond can and cannot achieve.
- Deferred Maintenance and Financial Management: The bond addresses $500 million in deferred maintenance across the district, but the focus group was divided. Some see it as an admission of past financial mismanagement, raising doubts about ASD20’s capacity to handle these funds responsibly.
- Safety and Security Concerns: While upgrades are promised district-wide, many participants questioned the necessity of specific improvements and whether they addressed the most pressing safety issues.
Military Funding and the Urgency Debate
One of the bond’s most compelling narratives is the $49 million tied to DoD matching funds for rebuilding AAHS. The district has portrayed this as a now-or-never opportunity, but critics argue the federal funds are not as time-sensitive as suggested. The funds are no-year allocations, meaning they remain available for future projects, potentially undermining the urgency district leadership has pushed.
Key Criticisms of the Bond
Critics have pointed to several areas where the bond falls short:
- Lack of Transparency: ASD20 has not conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, which is likely required by Colorado state law. This raises serious concerns about how the bond funds will be allocated and whether legal obligations are being fulfilled. Additionally, there are questions about the decision-making process. While ASD20 leadership says that $11 million — a significant percentage of the bond — will go to charter schools, there has been no clear documentation or public explanation of who made this decision or how it was reached.
- Potential Legal Violations: The bond’s focus on charter schools raises red flags under Colorado’s C.R.S. § 22–30.5–104, which mandates bond funds be distributed based on a district-wide needs assessment. Without such documentation, the bond’s legality remains questionable and could potentially jeopardize the federal match.
- Leadership Failures: The ASD20 Board of Education and district administration have faced heavy criticism, including allegations of gaslighting opponents, mishandling public relations around the bond, and controversies unrelated to the bond, such as book bans and parent harassment. Furthermore, the Board has been canceling meetings, holding them only once a month, limiting opportunities for public engagement and transparency. There are also concerns about suppression of information — despite multiple attempts to coordinate with ASD20 Chief Communications Officer Mark Belcher, sources still don’t have access to the deferred maintenance list as it existed when these bond decisions were made. These leadership failures have eroded public trust, leaving many skeptical of the board’s ability to responsibly manage the $83 million.
- Gaslighting and Misinformation: Opponents of the bond are concerned that district leadership and other bond supporters will mischaracterize critics as anti-military or anti-education while avoiding key legal and procedural issues. Emotional appeals rather than facts seem to dominate the bond’s promotion strategy.
- Alternatives Not Considered: Despite claims that this bond is the best option, critics point out that other funding mechanisms — such as certificates of participation or public-private partnerships — have not been fully explored.
Lack of Transparency and Decision-Making Concerns
As mentioned, ASD20 has not conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, which is likely required by law. Additionally, concerns have risen about the decision-making process regarding the funding options for rebuilding Air Academy High School.
At the January 4, 2024, Board of Education meeting, ASD20 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Becky Allan discussed the PSMI (Public Schools on Military Installations) program. She presented six possibilities for funding the district’s portion. None of the six involved issuing a bond.
At the May 9, 2024, Board of Education meeting, Allan presented three funding options for securing PSMI (Public Schools on Military Installations) funding:
- Certificate of Participation
- Clean Bond (only asking for funds to rebuild Air Academy High School)
- Extended Bond (including additional funds for other capital projects)
This was the first public discussion of bond funding options for rebuilding Air Academy High School.
Superintendent Haberer mentioned that at some point in the past (the assumption is between the January 4th board meeting and the May 9th board meeting), she, Ms. Allan, and Director Yanez conducted informal focus groups with an unknown collection of stakeholders who indicated a preference for a bond. No further information was provided.
However, by the June 6, 2024, board meeting, Allan presented ballot language to the Board for Option 3 (the extended bond). This raised questions: When was the public discussion or decision made to move forward with Option 3? There appears to be a gap in transparency regarding how and when the Board decided to pursue this option.
By the August 8, 2024, board meeting, the Board voted on a resolution certifying the bond ballot language, further deepening concerns about whether the process was fully transparent and inclusive of public input.
The Developer Influence and Hidden Motives
As the bond debate intensifies, rumors of significant contributions from construction developers to an issue committee further complicate public perception. Unfortunately, these contributions won’t be disclosed until after ballots are sent out, raising concerns about transparency and potential hidden influences on the process.
Charter School Participation in Bond Discussions: Compliance with State Law
Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § 22–30.5–404(c), requires Academy District 20 to invite charter schools to participate in discussions about any upcoming bond measures by June 1, 2024. This legal obligation ensures that charter schools have a voice in how funds are allocated and that their needs are considered as part of the district-wide planning process.
However, concerns have been raised regarding the lack of documented evidence showing ASD20 met this deadline. While ASD20 leadership claims that charter schools were involved in early bond discussions — citing this as the reason a comprehensive needs assessment was not performed — no formal documentation has been provided to substantiate these claims. This lack of transparency has fueled speculation about potential compliance issues.
Public Information Session and Conflicting Statements:
On September 17, 2024, during a public information session about the bond, ASD20 CFO Becky Allan stated that conversations with charter schools began in May, asserting that these discussions were conducted over the phone. However, she had no documented evidence beyond her word to confirm this timeline.
Following the session, TCA President Robert Thomason made a conflicting statement, claiming that he first learned about the bond initiative at the end of June. This further raised questions about the timeline of charter school involvement.
This inconsistent timeline and the lack of documented evidence supporting ASD20’s compliance with state law add to broader concerns about the district’s transparency and whether it correctly engaged charter schools in the bond planning process.
Potential Violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act
Concerns about transparency surrounding ASD20’s bond measure have deepened following a formal complaint I filed on September 9, 2024. The complaint alleges that the district violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) by using district resources to advocate for the bond, which Colorado law prohibits.
The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, through its Elections Division, issued a Notice of Initial Review and Opportunity to Cure to ASD20 on September 19, 2024. According to the notice, the district may have violated section 1–45–117 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which prohibits public entities from expending funds to support or oppose ballot measures. Specifically, the district’s website was cited for using advocacy-based language, such as “minimal financial investment” and “without increasing taxes,” potentially influencing voters to favor the bond.
Details of the Complaint
The language appeared on ASD20’s bond information webpage, and the complaint argues that these phrases were designed to promote the bond rather than providing neutral, fact-based information. Under the FCPA, public entities must remain neutral, offering only factual descriptions of ballot measures without pushing voters toward a specific outcome.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
The ASD20 bond proposal presents itself as a no-tax-increase solution to critical district needs, but it is marred by legal, procedural, and leadership concerns. Voters deserve a bond proposal that complies with the law, transparently addresses district-wide needs, and is free from hidden influences. Until then, the district’s leadership must rebuild trust to win public support for such an important measure. With $500 million in deferred maintenance and public trust hanging in the balance, voters must demand a more comprehensive, legally compliant, and transparent proposal from ASD20’s Board of Education.