Brian Moody, chair of Advocates for D20 Kids and candidate for Academy District 20’s (ASD20) school board, should face scrutiny following revelations from district emails and meeting records obtained through a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request. The documents indicate Moody’s direct involvement in discussions that included a highly controversial proposal to segregate LGBTQ students and staff into separate educational environments.
On September 15, 2022, Moody initiated and chaired a private meeting with ASD20 administrators to discuss strategic planning and policy implementation within the district. During this session, official meeting notes reveal that Moody voiced concerns that district policies were overly accommodating to LGBTQ students, suggesting this approach disenfranchised other student populations.
The situation escalated further when Don Spano, a representative affiliated with Moody’s Advocates for D20 Kids, explicitly proposed creating separate schools or campuses dedicated solely to LGBTQ students and staff. Spano’s proposal described the establishment of “traditional” campuses for non-LGBTQ students and “non-traditional” schools specifically for LGBTQ individuals. This suggestion quickly became a focal point of public outrage and community criticism.
In a subsequent ASD20 school board meeting held after these discussions were publicly disclosed, Moody vehemently denied supporting such segregation. He characterized the proposal as “disingenuous” and publicly stated it had never received support from his advocacy group. However, his denial is starkly contradicted by documented evidence, raising significant questions regarding his transparency and consistency in representing his group’s intentions and policy positions.
Additionally, Advocates for D20 Kids shares ideological ties with Moms for Liberty, a national conservative group known for advocating controversial, anti-LGBTQ policies. Crystal Alonso, a Moms for Liberty activist, publicly advocated for segregating LGBTQ students into specialized classes, comparing them to students with developmental disabilities, a stance criticized widely for promoting discrimination and exclusion.
Moody’s involvement in these discussions aligns him closely with broader conservative efforts seen nationwide to promote policies limiting LGBTQ inclusion in schools. Emails further reveal Moody’s interactions with former ASD20 Superintendent Tom Gregory, advocating restrictive transgender bathroom policies and parental oversight in student gender identity matters, reinforcing a consistent pattern of advocacy for policies perceived as discriminatory by critics.
This documented contradiction between Moody’s private policy discussions and his public denials underscores broader concerns about transparency, inclusivity, and equal treatment within Academy District 20. Like other candidates aligned with this extremist slate, Moody is clearly telegraphing that his focus areas, if elected, will revolve around divisive culture-war issues rather than addressing the genuine priorities of parents and taxpayers—such as academic achievement, fiscal responsibility, and student safety.
As voters prepare for upcoming school board elections, Moody’s actions, affiliations, and documented contradictions offer critical insights into potential impacts on district policy, community trust, and student well-being.