10/11/2026
DCSD Funded Voter Polls. Why Not an Independent Performance Audit?
DCSD receives independent financial audits. This column calls for a performance audit to examine whether existing spending delivers the best value, alongside its research on the $54 million annual tax proposal.
Douglas County School District was willing to spend money researching support for another $54 million in annual taxes. It should show the same willingness to examine whether it is getting the most from the money taxpayers already provide.
Hiring a polling company makes sense. A board considering a funding measure needs to understand residents’ views. What deserves scrutiny is why that research moved forward while the independent performance audit I requested remains without a formal proposal in the correspondence reviewed for this column.
DCSD already receives independent, third-party financial audits. The additional review I am seeking is a performance audit: an examination of whether existing spending delivers the best value. One investment helps the district assess support for additional revenue. The other could help establish whether existing revenue can go further. Taxpayers have a stake in both.
DCSD explicitly says on its polling page that it hired Pulse Decision Science for two polls. Both district-published topline documents carry Pulse’s name. The March 4–8 poll surveyed 505 likely voters and tested a $50 million annual proposal; the July 14–24 poll surveyed 506 likely voters and tested the $54 million proposal. Each reported 55% support and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
Pulse Decision Science offers survey research, predictive analytics, messaging and data modeling. Its company LinkedIn page describes it as a conservative polling, data and behavioral science firm. On its website, Pulse highlights work by its personnel, polling and data for Republican campaigns and organizations, including the Republican National Committee, Club for Growth and Congressional Leadership Fund. It also markets corporate and public-affairs research and strategy services.
What makes a poll scientific is its research design. Researchers define the population they want to describe such as county adults, registered voters or likely voters, then explain how participants were selected and recruited. They disclose the sample size, interview dates, whether responses came by phone or online, and the exact questions and answer choices. If results are weighted to better match the population, they explain which characteristics were used and the benchmarks behind those adjustments.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research’s disclosure standards also call for an explanation of uncertainty. Probability samples can support a conventional margin of sampling error; opt-in samples require a different, clearly explained basis for any precision estimate. A margin of error does not capture every source of bias, including who declines to participate or how a question is framed. Those methodological details help readers evaluate a finding such as 55% support. The word “scientific” alone does not supply them.
DCCO also ran a free, nonpartisan reader straw poll, inviting residents to participate without targeting a political party or a particular voter profile. In the October 11 snapshot, 359 responses broke down to 233 opposed (64.9%), 115 in favor (32.0%) and 11 unsure (3.1%). Our earlier breakdown examined the geographic differences in the first 357 responses.
That open invitation captured the views of people who chose to respond; it was not a randomly selected or representative sample of county voters. It offers a useful reader snapshot alongside the district’s scientific polling, while the cost and scope of the district’s commissioned research remain questions for the records request.
Public-opinion research gives a school board information about residents’ views before it places a funding proposal on the ballot. An operational review serves a different purpose: examining whether staffing, purchasing, contracts, transportation, facilities and other spending are delivering the best value.
In August, I asked the board to commission an independent review before seeking additional taxpayer funding. The scope I described was broad, including transaction-level spending, purchasing cards, legal expenses and major contracts awarded without competitive bids.
Board President Susan Meek responded August 28 that the board had not considered or acted on a proposal for that specific audit. Speaking for herself, she raised questions about its purpose, scope, cost and realistic timeline, including whether such a substantial review could be completed before ballots were mailed.
Those questions are precisely what a scoped proposal would help answer.
Meek had also spoken with the district’s independent auditor. When I asked what that conversation established, she explained September 20 that it was an informal discussion, not a request for a proposal or formal estimate. She remained open to a board discussion about the value and scope of additional review.
The next step should be to turn that discussion into something the board and public can evaluate: defined questions, an estimated price and a workable schedule. Seeking a proposal does not commit the district to every element of my original request.
The polling bill is an important part of that question, and it remains unresolved. My official September 22 Colorado Open Records Act request sought the cost of each poll, who paid, the funding source, contracts, invoices and payment records. It also sought the questionnaires, toplines, crosstabulations, full results and supporting research records behind the findings described as scientific. Those records would help readers examine what was asked and how the reported findings were produced. The district’s September 23 response directed me to its funding website and invited me to narrow the request.
On September 28, I prioritized the March and July polling costs, invoices and purchase orders, along with any proposal or estimate for an additional audit. I followed up October 6 and October 9. The district acknowledged the request and referred me to its funding website, but, as of October 11, the CORA correspondence reviewed for this column contains no substantive answer to the outstanding cost and research-record requests. Its published toplines and slides provide some information about the polls; they do not establish the polling bill.
That leaves a comparison worth pursuing: what did the voter research cost, and what would a properly scoped performance audit cost? The records and an audit proposal are needed to answer it. There is no basis yet for saying the two expenses are comparable—or that money spent on polling would have paid for the review.
DCSD already undergoes independent financial audits and has citizen oversight committees. A performance audit would add a different line of inquiry. Accurate financial statements are essential, but they do not by themselves establish whether a contract offers the best value, a process could be improved or equivalent services could be delivered at lower cost.
Other districts illustrate the kinds of choices a spending review can surface. A Fort Bend ISD cost-savings report identified approximately $17.4 million in potential annual General Fund savings. About $12.6 million involved elementary school consolidation or closure; other opportunities concerned scheduling, indirect cost recovery and water use. Those figures describe opportunities, not a guarantee of savings, and some involve difficult service decisions.
The point is to obtain an independent assessment of Douglas County’s own operations. A useful review should identify tradeoffs as well as possible savings, giving the board a basis for deciding which changes protect instruction and which would undermine it.
The district’s proposed override identifies teacher and staff compensation, school security, career and technical education, and restored student programming as funding priorities. Examining existing operations could help clarify whether money can be redirected toward those needs and where additional revenue is necessary.
The board should obtain a scope and price for independently examining how existing money is spent. The district has invested in understanding whether residents will support more revenue. It should put the same seriousness into finding out how far existing revenue can go.
