Letters, June 5: Home Rule would hurt DCSD; Stop the rush job; Look skeptically at home rule; Declining trust
- Stop the Power Grab
- Jun 5
- 8 min read
Letters to the editor at Colorado Community Media, June 5, 2025
Home rule would hurt DCSD
I attended the May 27 DCSD Board meeting to learn about how home rule might impact Douglas County’s influence over land use and safety in the district.
Although the commissioners’ presentation was billed as information not advocacy, it seemed more like a campaign event. Commissioner Teal repeatedly used the platform to assert what he would prioritize if he were elected to the charter commission. In my view, the presentation to the DCSD Board was a clear example of electioneering, and that impression was confirmed when Teal ended the meeting by asking the directors to make a resolution that DCSD, “as a municipality,” endorses home rule.
Questions from board directors uncovered significant possibilities for a home rule Douglas County to infringe on district independence. Teal, who has consistently opposed funds for new neighborhood schools, declared his strong inclination to use home rule powers to designate land previously dedicated to DCSD to charter schools. Commissioner Laydon, who has opposed bond and MLO elections to fund DCSD security improvements, expressed a desire to use home rule authority to require (but not to fund) the use of metal detectors at DCSD schools. Douglas County Attorney Jeff Garcia clarified that, under home rule, the county might have the authority to override district policies on immigration enforcement, DEI, and school security. His responses clearly communicated a strong likelihood that any conflicts between the district and county home rule could be settled in court. Given the district’s limited resources, asserting independence from county home rule could be extremely costly.
Teal stated that he did not invite DCSD board members to a meeting he called with other elected officials, because he had never considered how home rule might affect the school district and its elected board. Ironically, he went on to malign Director Meek as “uninformed” when she directly questioned his assumption that there would be no conflicts between county home rule and DCSD policy decisions.
The commissioners’ grandstanding and clear disregard for home rule’s effects on the independent board, the staff, and most importantly the students of the only school district and the largest employer in DougCo cause grave concern. Home rule could infringe on DCSD’s planning for future schools and decisions about school security. Yet the commissioners ask for a resolution from the BOE in support of home rule?
Catherine Lees
Highlands Ranch
Another no on home rule
I am a resident of Sterling Ranch, and I have serious concerns about how home rule in Douglas County could affect schools and communities in unincorporated areas like ours. While cities like Castle Pines and Lone Tree have municipal home rule, communities like Sterling Ranch and Highlands Ranch do not, and that leaves us vulnerable to county decisions that we may not agree with. Douglas County’s recent opt-out of state firearm restrictions in government buildings only applies to unincorporated areas, for example. That’s a preview of how home rule could expand the county’s authority over zoning, land use, utilities, and even school safety without clear input from our communities.
What powers would the county gain over our schools, parks, and infrastructure?
Could they mandate school safety measures or allow firearms on school grounds? And if so, who pays for it?
Would our school district be accountable to the county?
Without municipal home rule, what recourse do we have if we disagree with county policies?
This feels like a shift that could silence the voices of residents in the most populous parts of Douglas County, and I can’t support handing over that kind of unchecked power.
I’d also like to express my concern that the school district allowed the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners to speak for over an hour in favor of this rushed home rule initiative without an opposing viewpoint at the May 27 school board meeting. I hope the DCSD Board will make time for an opposing viewpoint at its next meeting on June 10. I’m voting no on 1A on June 24.
Loreli Wright
Sterling Ranch
Stop the home rule rush job
By now, DougCo residents are aware of the county commissioners’ hasty attempt to pass home rule in our county — with no input from the community outside that of their cronies, many of whom were directly hand-picked to run for the charter commission because, one assumes, they will agree to whatever the BoCC dictates.
Commenting on the BoCC’s motivation for home rule, Commissioner George Teal said, “If the political winds do change here in the county, we preserve these conservative principles that can’t just be changed by two county commissioners being elected who are Democrats.” Sounds to me like he’s saying that the constituents of the county shouldn’t get to decide what kind of representative government they’d like. In fact, if the resolution to form a home rule charter is passed in the $500,000 June 24 special election, it’s possible that the charter commission, under Teal’s guidance, could decide to change elected county positions into appointed ones, which would further undermine constituents’ right to choose their representatives.
Commissioner Abe Laydon voted to explore home rule on March 25, stating that, “We are pursuing home rule status to assert our right to govern ourselves in the best interest of our people,” yet clearly the best interest of the people is not being taken into account if we are unable to have input into the structure of our county government as a result of the BoCC’s power grab and designation of charter commission appointees.
I believe that any exploration of home rule should involve multiple town halls where constituents can ask questions and provide feedback prior to voting on whether to form a home rule charter commission, and much closer to the 240 days allowed by Colorado statute for writing the charter than the mere 60 days that will be allowed by the BoCC’s whims. That is why I am voting no on the formation of the home rule charter commission on June 24, and I ask my fellow residents to do the same. Check out stopdougcopowergrab.com for more info.
Jennifer Williams
Sterling Ranch
Look skeptically at home rule
We have a home rule special election coming June 24. The voice of voters will only heard if they turn out to vote. A “no” vote will not be counted if the ballot is tossed in the trash. If only those in favor of home rule vote, then guess what, the process will get voted in.
There are some things to educate ourselves on before we vote. Who really wants this? Commissioners Teal, Laydon, and Van Winkle want it, and they want it bad, so bad that they chatted amongst themselves and their special interests groups and political favorites and signed the resolution to get the process going without any input from their constituents. Why do they want it? I don’t think anyone, except them, knows for sure. There is what they say in public and then what they say behind closed doors and they may not the same. The evidence that the real reasons are those that they don’t say out loud becomes a little more clear when you take a look at the 2024 Colorado Revised Statutes Title 30-Government-County section 30-1-101 – 30-35-106, it is very complex and vast, but there in all the sections and parts and titles you can see just how much governing power our county already has and how many more will come with home rule, as it pertains to structure and organization.
Do not mistakenly believe that a home rule county means independence from Colorado state laws, because it does not, even though it sounds lovely. It appears to be an expansion of government and one really needs to ask why do we need bigger government. Douglas County already has, without home rule, its own health department, its place in a new judicial district, planning commission that has provided for continued growth, a sheriff department, boasting statics of crime reduction of 7%, ballot initiatives for more taxes, ability to write county ordinances relating to public health and safety, a school district that has improved test scores and has 92% graduation rate. Do we really need bigger government? In addition, the proposed timeframe for the charter creation is a mere 60 days, approximately. It’s such a complex endeavor, we need to consider whether 60 days is too rushed to be successful. The money for the election has already been spent, we might as well get our money’s worth by turning out to vote.
Chrissy Saccardi-Williams
Castle Rock
Keep home rule away from schools
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed home rule charter in Douglas County. While it may be presented as a way to give our county more local control, the fine print tells a different story — one that raises serious concerns for our schools, our children, and our community.
Under home rule, county commissioners would gain discretion over the use of public lands which includes land currently designated for public schools. They would also have jurisdiction over roads, water and sewer, that would be necessary for making a school site viable. That means they could make decisions that disrupt school planning, limit school expansion, or repurpose land that was intended for education. Expanded county authority over land use puts new and growing communities at risk of having inadequate space for neighborhood public schools.
Even more troubling, the proposed charter would give commissioners the power to “enact and provide for the enforcement of all county ordinances necessary to protect life, health, and property.” This opens the door for them to influence critical matters of school safety — including whether to require metal detectors, arm teachers, or allow firearms on school grounds. These decisions should be made by educators, parents, and public safety experts — not by politicians with no direct ties to our classrooms.
Home rule opens the door to politicizing education and jeopardizing student safety. I urge Douglas County residents to look below the surface and vote no on home rule. Our schools — and our children — deserve better.
Patti Anderson
Parker
Declining trust in government
Given how much of our lives are affected by government, it is not surprising that almost everyone dislikes one or more aspects of governing. This is true of federal, state and local governments. Given citizens’ differing views on taxation, public services and laws, some dislike is to be expected.
Many factors can generate distrust. First, government does not always do a good job of explaining difficult decisions. Some issues are very complex and require significant effort to understand them. Public servants need to do a better job of communicating the rationale for their decisions. The public media financial need to attract a viewing or listening audience does not help when they won’t waste limited air time explaining an issue when a dramatic sound bite is quicker and cheaper. Then there are those individuals who attract attention for personal gain by bad mouthing government and public servants.
However, probably the most significant factor creating government distrust is when government officials take very important or significant actions that are not fully discussed and debated with its citizens. There are ongoing distrust examples at the federal level. However, we have our local example in the Douglas County Commission decision, without any public discussion or debate, to spend a half million taxpayer dollars to initiate a rushed home rule charter process. This is like writing a local constitution which will have long-term implications for Douglas County citizens. Without any debate before this decision, there is now insufficient time allowed to inform the voters on all the issues before voting and insufficient time for the home rule commission deliberation in drafting the charter. Such a rushed and concealed process does not garner citizen confidence or trust. Given the commissioners’ secretive and rushed approach on home rule, we all should reject their proposal and vote no on this attempt at home rule. Another attempt can be made in the future when there is more opportunity for citizens to participate. That would help to improve citizen trust in their Douglas County government.
Lee Frame
Home rule commission candidate
Highlands Ranch
Lee Frame is a good choice
As a Douglas County resident of the Wind Crest senior community, I have become acutely aware of the home rule commission and its proposal to establish a home rule charter. I highly recommend Lee H. Frame to be elected to this commission should it be created. His impressive background speaks to his many capabilities to take on this critical task.
Libby Bortz, LCSW
Highlands Ranch
Comments