Summary#

SB 26-166, School Board Member Disqualifying Convictions, would amend Colorado Revised Statutes section 22-31-107, which sets qualifications for school directors (school board members). The bill failed and did not become law. Its apparent goal was to add conviction-based limits on who may serve.

• It would bar a person convicted of a crime of violence or certain felony drug offenses from serving if the offense happened when they were at least 18 and fewer than 10 years had passed since they completed every part of their sentence.
• The covered crimes would include attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy, as well as offenses with substantially similar elements under other jurisdictions’ laws.
• It would keep the existing bar for convictions involving sexual offenses against a child, while expanding the listed offenses to include similar offenses under other jurisdictions’ laws.
• If a sitting school director became ineligible under the bill, the law would require a vacancy to be filled under the existing vacancy process.
• A guilty or no-contest plea, or a deferred judgment and sentence, would count as a conviction unless the person successfully completed a deferred sentence.

What it means for you#

• People seeking or holding a school board seat: Had the bill become law, a person with a covered violent or drug conviction from age 18 or older would be ineligible during the 10-year period. That period would start only after all parts of the sentence were completed, including incarceration, financial penalties, and parole. The bill does not say that passing the 10 years automatically satisfies other eligibility rules.
• People with a sexual-offense conviction involving a child: The existing disqualification would remain. The bill does not give this category the 10-year limit that it sets for the new categories.
• School districts: If a sitting director became ineligible, the district would have to fill the vacancy under the process already referenced in law.
• The public: Because the bill failed, it makes no change to eligibility or school board vacancies.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill states no appropriation, fee, or fine. It gives no estimate for any costs of applying the eligibility rules.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not set out how eligibility would be checked, who would make a decision, or what review or appeal process would apply.
• It uses “substantially similar elements” for offenses from other jurisdictions but does not explain how that comparison would be made.
• The parent law was not supplied, so I could not verify other current eligibility rules, the existing vacancy process, or how the bill’s definitions would interact with current law beyond what the bill summary says.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that school board members have public responsibilities involving schools and children, and the new bars would keep people with certain serious convictions from serving for a defined period.
• The 10-year limit would make the new disqualification temporary rather than permanent.
• Starting the 10-year period after the full sentence is completed would mean the bar lasts beyond incarceration if other sentence requirements, such as financial penalties or parole, remain outstanding.

Case against#

• The new bars would cover broad categories, including attempts, solicitation, conspiracy, and offenses from other jurisdictions judged to have substantially similar elements.
• The 10-year period would not begin until every part of the sentence was completed; unresolved financial penalties or parole could delay its start.
• The bill text does not provide an individualized review process or exceptions for the new disqualifications. It is unclear whether other law provides any such process.