While I am pleased that the School District 9-R bond issue passed in the November election, I am concerned with the subterfuge planned for the next step of the process. The school board told us one thing before the election, and the board is now planning to spend more money than the voters thought they were authorizing.

Leading up to the election, the board passed an unambiguous resolution stating they needed to enlarge, improve, remodel, repair and make additions to schools, all at a cost estimated at approximately $90,000,000. Subsequently, the campaign to pass the ballot issue was based on the notion that the district needed $90 million. What was not disclosed to voters was that the real plan being discussed internally was to collect approximately $30 million more than the district said was needed.

The public was not told that the district was planning to pay artificially inflated interest rates on the loan, also known as “premium bonds,” that would entice investors to pony up about $110 million rather than the $90 million we were told was needed. By choosing to pay inflated interest rates, the district will leave us in debt by $110 million, rather than the $90 million most people thought they were voting on.

Similarly, voters were not informed that the district planned on raising $10 million more by selling real estate no longer needed.

Likely the voters would have approved the spending of $120 million if they had been asked. However, they weren’t asked and that is the problem. Elected officials have the responsibility to tell voters, in the simplest terms, what they intend to do. The strategy about to be deployed displays a disrespect of the voters. There is nothing illegal about the $120 million plan. But just because it is legal and many other people do it without getting caught does not make it right.

Before the election, a committee was formed to support the ballot issue that asked voters to increase debt by $90 million. The chairperson of that committee was Diane Doney, a Littleton School District employee and mother of the 9-R district finance director. Recently, Doney defended the use of premium bonds and the board did not ask for rebuttal to the shallow arguments presented. One of her arguments is that the mill levy will not be raised as a result of paying higher-than-market interest rates. While it is true that the deceptive wording of the bond issue allows the repayment of $110 million without a mill levy increase, repayment of excess collections over the next 20 years is going to require substantially more cash from taxpayers compared to a simple $90 million loan.

Another of Doney’s arguments is that the district needs to spend more than $90 million to meet its needs. This may very well be true. The district could have chosen to ask for a larger amount at the election, but the chances of passing the bond issue would have declined if the whole truth had been told. The word that best describes this scheme is unethical.

Certainly, additional bond issues will be needed in future years. The board is putting the passage of these issues in jeopardy. Although I attended K-12 in the district and am a parent of children, it will be hard for me to vote for approval of similarly deceptive proposals. It is not too late for the board to do the right thing, and I hope they will consider the long-term impact of following the lead of their staff, attorneys, and bond salesmen.

John Simpson is a Durango resident.