When Voters Demanded Reform, Commissioners Protected Themselves
Douglas County voters did something powerful.
More than 20,000 verified residents successfully petitioned to place reform of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners on the November ballot. They gathered the signatures, followed the process, and earned the right to put their proposal before the voters.
The commissioners’ response was not simply to refer it to the ballot. Nor was it to launch a campaign opposing it. They used their authority over the ballot process to add prejudicial language to the citizens’ question. They created a competing measure that would preserve countywide elections for every commissioner. And now they will decide whether the language they approved is fair.
The result is a ballot process that is more complicated, more confusing, and more favorable to the people already holding power. I do not believe that confusion is merely an unfortunate side effect. It serves their political self-interest.
What did the petitioners actually propose?
This was not merely an initiative to increase the number of commissioners from three to five.
The petition language was specific. It asked voters to decide whether to expand the Board and, if expansion passed, to select between two clearly defined election methods:
Five commissioners elected directly by the voters of five individual districts; or
Three commissioners are elected directly by district, and two are elected countywide.
Both methods guarantee meaningful district representation. That structure also satisfied Colorado law, which requires a citizen petition seeking the designation of at least two permitted election methods by five commissioners.
District representation was not an incidental detail. It was central to the reform.
Under Douglas County’s current system, commissioner candidates must live in individual districts, but every commissioner is elected by voters across the entire county. That means voters in a district can reject a candidate, only for that candidate to be elected by voters elsewhere. It also means a candidate must run countywide and attempt to reach hundreds of thousands of voters—an extraordinarily difficult undertaking for an everyday citizen. Take it from me!
The petitioners sought to change that dynamic. Their stated purpose was to move power closer to residents by ensuring that at least some commissioners would be elected only by—and directly accountable to—the people of their districts.
This is a basic principle of representative government. We see geographic representation in the U.S. House of Representatives and in Colorado’s state legislative districts. Residents of a defined area choose the person who will represent that area. This is not a new concept in American government.
The Clerk and Recorder ultimately certified 20,434 valid signatures, well above the 15,087 required, according to reporting on the Clerk’s statement of sufficiency.
It’s also important to acknowledge that signing a petition does not necessarily mean every signer intended to vote yes in November. But it does mean those residents agreed that this specific proposal, with these specific choices, deserved to be decided by Douglas County voters. And I suspect, most importantly for the proponents of the initiative, that they did not sign a blank check authorizing the commissioners to redesign the reform after it qualified.
Is the Board honoring that intent?
The commissioners have now referred a separate measure asking whether all five commissioners should continue to be elected countywide (a method commonly described as at-large voting).
The Board-referred ballot question asks:
“In the event the Douglas County Board of Commissioners is increased to five members, shall all registered Douglas County voters continue to elect all County Commissioners?”
That was not one of the two alternatives presented to petition signers.
State law required the petitioners to present at least two permitted methods. It does not require the commissioners to add a third after the petition has qualified. The Board’s new alternative preserves the defining feature of the existing system that the petitioners deliberately sought to change: countywide control over every commissioner election.
The Board characterizes its measure as another choice for voters. But respecting voter choice is not the same as manufacturing an additional alternative after citizens have completed the petition process. The petitioners followed Colorado law, selected two permitted election methods, wrote those methods into the petition, and gathered more than enough valid signatures to place their proposal on the ballot.
The commissioners did none of that.
With three votes at a special meeting, they placed their preferred alternative alongside a citizen proposal that took months of organizing, more than 150 volunteers and thousands of hours of work to qualify.
That raises a fundamental question:
Are the commissioners administering the citizens’ initiative? Or are they using their governmental authority to undermine its intent?
A governing body can possess legal authority yet exercise it in ways that violate the spirit and integrity of citizen participation. If elected officials can wait until a petition qualifies and then add an alternative that preserves their existing political system, the initiative process becomes less a tool of direct democracy and more an invitation for incumbents to rewrite reforms they dislike.
Putting their thumb on the scale
But wait…there’s more.
The commissioners did not stop at adding their own competing measure. They also adopted a ballot preamble stating that expansion would cost between $760,000 and $1.3 million annually, funded by county revenue supporting “public safety, transportation, and essential county services.”
That wording appears in the Board’s August 28 ballot-title resolution.
The language invites voters to infer that approving two additional commissioners could mean cutting public safety, roads, or other essential services. But it’s incredibly important for voters to know that the initiative itself does not require cuts to any of those services.
The county’s own fiscal analysis identifies an ongoing base cost of approximately $482,000 for two additional commissioners. The higher figures assume that current or future commissioners would choose to hire additional employees.
The initiative does not require those hires. Nor does it direct the county to reduce public safety, transportation, or any other service. Those would be separate budget decisions made by commissioners. Decisions often made in the course of business. And let us also not forget that these decisions will not take effect until the initiative is implemented, at which time the composition of the Board of Commissioners could look very different.
Providing voters with accurate fiscal information is appropriate. Taking a hypothetical staffing scenario and pairing it with a warning about public safety, roads, and essential services inside the ballot question is not a neutral description of what the petitioners proposed.
But it is the commissioners’ campaign argument against it.
The people who signed the petition never saw or approved that language. As one organizer told Denver7, it was added after the signatures had been gathered and certified. The Board did not merely clarify the citizens’ proposal. It changed how that proposal would be presented to voters.
The Clerk and Recorder’s role matters
Before the commissioners inserted themselves more deeply into this process, the Douglas County Office of Clerk and Recorder performed the work residents normally associate with election administration.
Clerk and Recorder Sheri Davis’s office received the petition, reviewed the signatures, and certified 20,434 as valid. Denver7 also reported that the Clerk’s office had approved the initial title at the time the petition was submitted.
Only after the measure qualified did the commissioners adopt new county procedures governing voter initiatives, assert their authority to set the final ballot title, and reserve for themselves the power to hear challenges to that title. The county’s own 3-to-5 timeline confirms that the initiative qualified on August 12, the Board adopted its new procedures on August 25, and the Board set the disputed title on August 28.
The Clerk’s office then issued a notable public response. In a statement provided to Denver7, the office emphasized that its responsibilities arise under Colorado law and that it would continue to review and fulfill those responsibilities “in accordance with the law.” The statement also reaffirmed the office’s commitment to conducting elections “with the utmost integrity.”
That statement should not be interpreted as a legal ruling that the commissioners have no role in setting a ballot title. State law does assign responsibilities to a county’s legislative body. It does, however, underscore an important principle: election duties are not created or erased by a resolution commissioners adopt for themselves.
The Clerk and Recorder is an independently elected official with statutory election responsibilities. Her office verified the signatures, certified the initiative, and remains responsible for carrying out its legal duties regardless of how the commissioners attempt to define the process. That independence is especially important when the ballot measure directly affects the commissioners' offices and political power.
Election integrity is not limited to counting ballots accurately. It also requires respecting the lawful process that puts a citizen measure on the ballot. Preserving the integrity of what those citizens actually brought forward.
Where was this fiscal alarm before?
The commissioners’ sudden concern about every public dollar would be more convincing if they applied that concern consistently.
Over the past year, these same commissioners have demonstrated a willingness to spend, finance, or forgo substantial sums of public money when doing so advances their priorities. These decisions involve different types of public finance and should each be evaluated on their own merits. But that is precisely the point: when commissioners make a fiscal decision, they explain why they believe it is worthwhile. They do not ordinarily reduce every budget choice to a warning about money being taken from public safety, roads, and essential services.
They have reserved that framing for a citizen initiative that would reform their own offices.
Consider the following examples…
Over $500,000 for the commissioners’ Home Rule special election
The clearest comparison is the Board’s own Home Rule initiative.
Last year, the commissioners authorized over $500,000 for an off-cycle special election on their proposal to begin restructuring Douglas County government.
The county’s Home Rule materials said the election would be paid for from the General Fund contingency and that no programs would be affected. The Home Rule ballot question did not contain a warning that the money could otherwise support public safety, transportation, or essential services. Nor did it include speculative estimates for potential government functions that a future Home Rule Charter Commission might propose.
When the commissioners wanted to restructure county government, they trusted themselves to explain the proposal and allowed voters to decide. But when citizens successfully petitioned to change the commissioners’ own offices, the Board put a fiscal warning directly into the ballot question. (Hypocrisy has entered the chat.)
Douglas County voters overwhelmingly rejected Home Rule, with approximately 71% voting no. One may have thought the commissioners would learn a lesson from that experience. When it was the commissioners’ proposal, spending over $500,000 was presented as a manageable investment in democracy. When it is the citizens’ proposal, approximately $482,000 in required base annual costs is framed as a potential threat to public safety and essential services.
Approximately $19.3 million in tax rebates for the Flexential data center
In August, the commissioners unanimously approved a 35-year rebate of Douglas County’s share of the business personal property tax for Flexential’s planned Parker data center.
The county estimates its share of the rebate at approximately $543,000 each year. That is more than the approximately $482,000 base annual cost the county identified for adding two commissioners.
Over 35 years, the rebate is estimated to total approximately $19.3 million. Denver7 reported that the facility is projected to create 16 jobs.
The commissioners defended the rebate as an economic-development decision and described the business personal property tax as unfair. The county says commissioners are willing to waive their portion of that tax for “just about any business that asks.” (But have yet to define a process for making that ask.)
That statement is not the same as a formally adopted countywide rebate program with published eligibility standards and an established application process. For now, it is a policy position the commissioners have publicly expressed while approving an individual agreement that benefits a data center, fueled by tech companies that do not need the tax break.
The Board did not warn that the approximately $543,000 in annual county revenue being rebated to Flexential would otherwise support public safety, transportation or essential services. Commissioners treated it as a policy choice and defended it on its merits.
County budgets always involve choices. Our commissioners are willing to explain those choices when the expenditure or incentive is theirs. But when voters propose reforming the commissioners’ own offices, a comparable amount of public revenue is suddenly presented as a threat to deputies, roads, and essential services.
Up to $100 million for the Zebulon sports complex
Earlier this year, the commissioners approved major agreements for the Zebulon Regional Sports Complex and adopted a resolution declaring the county’s intent to finance the project through up to $100 million in Certificates of Participation. Without a public vote on the debt or expenditure, mind you, the lease-purchase financing of these agreements is subject to the county's annual appropriation.
The county says it expects revenue from the facility to cover operating costs and repay the county’s initial investment. Its current project update says grading is underway, infrastructure design is progressing, construction on the sports facilities is expected to begin in 2027 and the county still plans to finance up to $100 million through Certificates of Participation.
So, as of this writing, Zebulon has advanced beyond a concept: contracts and financing plans have been approved, grading has begun and design work is underway. But the county’s own language still describes the COP funding as a plan, meaning the final issuance and financial terms remain important future milestones to watch.
Whatever one thinks of Zebulon, it is a substantial, long-term financial undertaking advanced without seeking voters’ approval of the financing.
The Board also tightly controlled public comment at the March 31 meeting. CBS Colorado reported that 50 people signed up in favor and 28 signed up against. Rather than following the usual signup order, the county said Chair George Teal selected speakers based on their position so that both views would be represented. Numerous residents who had signed up—including opponents—were never called before the vote.
I know. I was there.
Yet the commissioners did not describe the potential $100 million commitment as money that could otherwise support public safety, transportation or essential services. Instead, they evaluated the project as a policy choice and made the decision themselves.
Now, when residents have earned the right to vote on changes to the structure of the Board, the commissioners suddenly believe that fiscal consequences must be embedded directly into the ballot question.
A $937,500 economic-development contract
In July, the commissioners approved a $937,500 professional-services contract with the Douglas County Economic Development Corporation.
That single-year contract is nearly twice the county’s approximately $482,000 estimate for the required annual cost of two additional commissioners.
One additional fact makes this relevant to the commissioner race.
My opponent, Jake Bockenfeld, is married to Kaylan Bockenfeld, whom DCEDC identifies as its executive assistant. Reporting by Michael Brown based on the executed agreement says she notarized the DCEDC president’s signature on the 2026 contract.
That does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by Jake Bockenfeld. But it creates a household connection to an organization receiving nearly $1 million from the Board he is seeking to join. That is worth noting because a commissioner may be asked to vote on future DCEDC contracts or participate in the county’s relationship with the organization. Voters deserve to know how Jake would handle decisions involving DCEDC, what he would disclose and what steps he would take to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
The current Board may believe this contract provides value. But commissioners did not describe the expenditure as nearly $1 million being taken away from deputies, roads or essential county services.
Again, they treated it as a budget decision to be evaluated on its merits. The 3-to-5 proposal deserves the same honest treatment.
This is selective fiscal outrage
A tax rebate, capital financing, a professional-services contract, a special election and the ongoing cost of elected offices are not identical. They have different purposes and different budget implications. Together they reveal an unmistakable inconsistency.
The commissioners do not describe every dollar they spend or forgo as money being taken from public safety, roads, and essential services. They have reserved that alarmist framing for a citizen initiative that would affect their concentration of power and make commissioners more directly accountable to individual districts and their constituents.
Fiscal responsibility means evaluating costs honestly and consistently.
It does not mean presenting one proposal’s hypothetical and purely subjective cost as inevitable while treating much larger financial commitments as ordinary policy choices.
The issue is not whether Douglas County can afford everything. The issue is whether commissioners are using fiscal information to educate voters—or selectively weaponizing it against a reform affecting their own offices.
Voters asked for reform. Commissioners rigged the choices.
The original citizen proposal is straightforward: expand the Board and choose between two methods that guarantee district representation.
The commissioners have now surrounded it with a speculative fiscal warning and an additional countywide-election question that contradicts the petitioners’ central purpose. Voters will have to determine how these questions interact, what happens if multiple methods pass and which outcome ultimately governs. Axios reported that Commissioner Teal said the election method receiving the highest raw vote total would prevail if multiple methods pass.
None of that additional confusion was created by the petitioners.
It was created by the commissioners after more than 20,000 signatures had been certified and the citizens’ measure had qualified for the ballot. The people controlling the process are also the people with the most direct interest in its outcome.
Now they will judge their own actions
A formal protest has been filed against the rewritten ballot title. Under procedures the Board adopted only days before approving the disputed language, the commissioners themselves will hear the challenge. Just let that set in for a moment…
They approved the language.
Now they will decide whether the language they approved is fair.
I will leave the ultimate legal questions to the attorneys and courts. But as a candidate for this Board, I believe the governance problem is undeniable.
Three sitting commissioners should not be able to reshape a citizen initiative affecting their own offices, introduce a competing alternative that protects the current electoral system, and then present themselves as impartial judges of the resulting dispute.
This is bigger than 3-to-5
You do not have to support the initiative to care about what is happening.
This is about whether elected officials honor the intent of citizens who successfully use the petition process. It is about whether the integrity of a voter-initiated measure is preserved after it qualifies. And it is about whether public officials see themselves as temporary stewards of government or owners of it.
More than 20,000 Douglas County residents earned the right to place a specific proposal before the voters. The commissioners are free to oppose it. But they should not substitute their own intent for the intent of the citizens who brought it forward.
Public office is not personal property.
County government belongs to the residents who elect it, not to politicians trying to protect themselves.
That is the standard I will bring to the Douglas County Board of Commissioners.
