Behind Closed Doors: Transparency on Trial in Douglas County
Imagine discovering that crucial decisions about your local government—potentially changing its very structure and powers—were made almost entirely out of your view. In Douglas County, Colorado, that unsettling scenario has become reality for many residents, following allegations that the three-member Board of Commissioners violated the state’s open meetings law in their push toward home rule status.
The controversy burst into the open thanks to a bipartisan group: former commissioner Lora Thomas, Highlands Ranch state Rep. Bob Marshall, and Julie Gooden, all of whom filed a lawsuit accusing commissioners of repeatedly discussing, planning, and moving forward on the home rule initiative behind closed doors. Evidence reportedly emerged from emails unearthed through a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request—which referenced suspicious “advanced planning meetings”—raising questions about just how much of this public business unfolded in secrecy. These discoveries weren’t mere coincidences. As Lora Thomas pored over internal correspondence, she saw patterns that contradicted official public records and the spirit of open government.
The heart of the plaintiffs’ argument is straightforward: Colorado’s open meetings law exists to prevent exactly this sort of behind-the-scenes deal-making. The law is clear—any time a quorum of officials meets to discuss public policy, citizens must be notified at least 24 hours in advance. Instead, the complaint alleges, county leaders orchestrated more than a dozen private gatherings to deliberate and decide on critical matters, only briefly surfacing in a ten-minute meeting (unlivestreamed and without public comment) to “rubber stamp” their chosen resolutions.
A closer look reveals a troubling disregard for civic norms. According to the lawsuit, the commissioners even pre-selected individuals slated to serve on a new 21-member home rule charter commission—again, all out of the public eye. Such steps bypassed not only the letter of the law but also its democratic intent, leaving residents blindsided by choices that would redefine local government for a generation.
Home Rule or Power Grab? The Stakes for Douglas County Democracy
The move to “home rule” might sound bureaucratic, but its implications are profound. Home rule, under Colorado law, allows counties to draft charters granting them broad local powers, often freeing them from specific state mandates. Only two Colorado counties—Weld and Pitkin—operate under such a system today. If Douglas County succeeds, it would mark the first county-commission-initiated home rule effort in the state in almost half a century.
Why does this matter so deeply? Because the process of crafting foundational local law should exemplify government transparency, not skirt it. Dr. Norman Provizer, a professor emeritus of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver, explains: “Home rule fundamentally changes the relationship between local politicians and their constituents. Without meaningful public input, these transitions risk shifting power away from the people.”
If the court finds Douglas County’s commissioners violated open meetings requirements, it could halt the current process, forcing officials to restart—this time, presumably, under the spotlight of public scrutiny instead of in the shadows. For many residents, the heart of the issue isn’t whether home rule is a good idea but whether they are being denied a fair say in the process.
“Sunshine is the best disinfectant. When public decisions are made in secret, democracy itself is at risk.”
Attorney Steve Zansberg, whose firm represents the plaintiffs, put it bluntly: the commissioners “blatantly and willfully flouted the state’s transparency requirements for months.” This language signals not a minor procedural oversight but a systematic pattern of exclusion—which, if allowed to persist, sets a dangerous precedent for local and state governance alike.
The Fight for Fairness: Historical Parallels and The Road Ahead
This isn’t the first transparency battle for some of the plaintiffs. Rep. Bob Marshall, one of the suit’s architects, previously tangled with the Douglas County School District in a grueling, 19-month legal effort over similar open meetings allegations. His dogged pursuit of public accountability draws on a long American tradition: Challenging opaque governance, especially when it threatens to disenfranchise ordinary citizens.
Consider how, across the country, open meetings laws—commonly called “sunshine” laws—have formed the backbone of democratic engagement. States enacted these laws decades ago after public pressure and journalistic investigations exposed rampant backroom dealing. Public skepticism isn’t new, but recent polling only amplifies those concerns. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center report, nearly two-thirds of Americans express little confidence that elected officials act in the public’s interest when shielded from scrutiny.
Douglas County’s unfolding drama illustrates why these protections matter. Critics of the commissioners’ process note that breaking not just the spirit but the plain language of transparency statutes violates more than just legal niceties—it erodes public faith in the most basic democratic norms. When lawmakers fail to respect legal requirements for openness, what message does it send about the value of ordinary civic participation?
None of this excuses the legal complexities at hand or minimizes the need for skilled, committed local leadership. Indeed, the desire for greater autonomy—home rule—can be rooted in legitimate dissatisfaction with cookie-cutter state mandates. But as the plaintiffs, and legal experts, argue: The ends do not justify the means when democracy is at stake. Every resident, regardless of political stripe, deserves notice, a seat at the table, and a voice in the defining questions of their government.
As the lawsuit marches forward, all eyes are on the courts—and on Douglas County’s voters, who have a rare opportunity not only to decide the fate of home rule, but to reaffirm their community’s bedrock commitment to open, inclusive, and accountable governance.
