Lora Thomas's SPOTLIGHT 25-23, 24
- Stop the Power Grab
- Jun 3
- 3 min read
An excerpt from former Commissioner Lora Thomas's Newsletters dated 6-1-25 and 6-2-25, #25-23 and #25-24
Hello!
Today is Sunday, June 1, and the Elections Division is supposed to deliver the home rule ballots to the post office tomorrow! That means your ballot should be in your hands this week.
The first ballot question asks: Should the voters of Douglas County, State of Colorado, elect a County Home Rule Charter Commission to study the structure and organization of Douglas County Government?"
Notice the wording is about STRUCTURE and ORGANIZATION of our government? That's not an accident or coincidence that the ballot language doesn't say one peep about what state laws Douglas County wants to OPT OUT of -- because we can't!!! Click here to read an email from a staffer in the Attorney General's Office
I'm voting NO on HOME RULE because the commissioners have failed to make a clear and convincing case to the people of Douglas County about why We the People--who have been totally LEFT OUT OF THIS PROCESS--will benefit. In fact, what we have gotten are threats of being arrested for simply asking questions--questions they have consistently evaded, ignored or responded with falsehoods! Are THESE the type of people you want to give MORE power?!
The next question on the ballot is for the voter to pick up to 3 candidates to serve on the Charter Commission in the At-Large capacity, and then up to 6 candidates from the county commissioner district in which you reside. This will provide 21 Douglas County residents to serve on the Charter Commission which will outline the future for governance in Douglas County.
And this monumental task must be completed by early September -- in TWO SHORT MONTHS a group of 21 people will decide how our future government will be structured. (See what Miss Information has to say on THIS topic below!)
Government moves SLOWLY for a reason, and it's to allow We the People to fully participate and get it right. This particular process has NOT been slow--or transparent...or informative...or inclusive. It's been rushed in the darkness and secrecy of backrooms without any citizen input as to the actual, identified need for Home Rule.
What problem is home rule going to solve for Douglas County? The biggest and most glaring of the unanswered questions...
From my point of view, it is going to create a lot of new, expensive future problems for Douglas County which we neither need nor can afford.
Lora Thomas
Same Open Meetings Laws - 2 Different Counties, Two Different Outcomes
Here are the first few paragraphs of this Opinion piece by Paula Noonan that explores a similar set of facts alleging Open Meetings violations in Elbert County and Douglas County, that ended up with different rulings by the judges assigned to these cases.
"Recently, two district courts have come down on opposite sides on our state’s “sunshine laws.” Our state's Open Meetings Law requires government policy be debated and decided in public with proper notice to allow for public oversight.
The law states policy-making meetings must be properly announced and agendas must accurately describe the subject matter of meetings. Policy-making decisions unconnected to agenda topics are not allowed, and policy discussed by a majority of elected officials outside of public oversight may not occur.
A district court heard an Open Meetings Law case involving the Elizabeth school board and found the school district passed a “Keep Schools Open and Education Unrestricted” resolution without adequate notice and without full description in its agenda in violation of the Open Meetings Law.
A district court in Douglas County found Douglas County commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Law when they introduced and passed two resolutions related to placing a home-rule initiative on the ballot without ever inviting public comment."
It should be noted for clarification that the Douglas County court did NOT make a final finding on Open Meetings violations by the commissioners, only that it denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction by finding against the plaintiffs on the issues of case strength and irreparable harm. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Read the rest of the blog here.
Comments