Thompson School District board votes to enter executive session on proposed settlements in two lawsuits

The Thompson School District R-2J Board of Education voted unanimously to go into executive session to receive legal advice on proposed settlements in two lawsuits, board members said during a meeting in June.

Board members approved a motion citing Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(b) to discuss the proposed settlements in Johnson v. Thompson School District R-2J (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, case no. 24CV01267) and Roan v. Thompson School District (Larimer County District Court, case no. 2025CV30576). The board then moved into the closed session with attorneys participating virtually.

The action follows public and board discussion about a consent-agenda item from the June 18 meeting that had proposed a $200,000 settlement. Board member Alexandra Lehi asked that the record show "there was no settlement in and on June 18 when we discussed and voted on it," and requested that clarification be placed on the public record. A staff member responding at the meeting confirmed, "that is correct, and this is in regards to that matter, the parking lot and the other issues regarding that ADA claim."

Board President Stuart Boyd made the motion to enter executive session; a second was recorded and the board secretary called the roll. The roll-call vote recorded all present board members voting in favor: Stuart Boyd; Denise Chapman; Amy Doran; Dawn Kirk; Barbara Cruz; Alexandra Lehi; and Nancy Rumfelt. The board chair said attorneys would join the executive session virtually and that the board would return to open session when discussions concluded.

Under Colorado law, Section 24-6-402(4)(b) permits certain attorney–client privileged discussions in executive session, including receiving legal advice on specific questions before public bodies. The board did not discuss settlement amounts or terms in the public record before moving into the closed session, and no final settlement was announced at the meeting.

Board materials at the meeting referenced the two pending cases by caption and case number; members and staff repeatedly linked the matters to an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim involving a district parking lot. The board's formal action at the meeting was solely to enter executive session to obtain legal advice; no open-session decision on settlement terms was recorded.

The board said it would reconvene in open session after the executive-session discussion ended.