Disrespect and possible illegality from school board members

On December 21st, 2023, two students from the Haven School, a senior and a recent graduate, addressed the District 3 school board during the public comments portion of the meeting (1).

The Haven students reported that they overheard a conversation by three school board members at the IHOP on 85-87 on November 27th, 2023. The two said that the board members expressed sentiments that were anti-LGBTQ, anti-Special Education, and anti-social-emotional learning. To support their statement, the two students cited Widefield board policy, referred to Colorado Department of Education policy, and called upon the community to take seriously the election of school board members.

During their address to the school board, the two young people conducted themselves with gravity and poise – a testament to the quality of their education at the Haven School and Widefield School District 3.

Unfortunately, their concern was not met with the response that they deserved. In a statement that sounds like legalistic deflection, the school board said at their January meeting that, “It’s not in the best interest of the board to refute or argue the statements made. We apologize for the negative interpretation of our conversation felt by the students” (2). This non-response, incidentally, was exactly what they said later to angry staff members when the board members visited Widefield schools during their usual spring tour.

In addition to disrespecting students and staff with their deflection, the school board members may have broken the Colorado Open Meetings Law in the first place, which might explain the board’s defensive statements.

The law says that “the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret” (3). The law defines school board meetings as “all meetings of a quorum or three or more members … at which any public business is discussed” (4). According to these legal definitions, the meeting of the three school board members at the IHOP may have been illegal.

The response of the board, delivered by board member Greg Fisher, seems to equivocate about that very issue, saying that “at the time that that conversation took place, Tina West had not been sworn into office.” The board members may hope that a technicality would hold up in court, even through the courts have frowned upon circumventing that specific law (5).

The community reacted sharply to the board with several protests, including a public letter by district social workers and a walkout at both Mesa Ridge and Widefield high schools. Communications Director Samantha Briggs responded constructively to student protests, saying, “We always support peaceful actions to stand up for what you believe in, as they are great ways to learn … We do not condone missing instructional time, but we understand that being active in the community can help you become a good citizen” (6)

There are a couple key requirements for removing a school board member from office: a recall petition must be approved by the county Clerk and Recorder, the recall petition must be signed within 60 days by at least 40% of the voters who voted in the last election (7).