Several members of the Evergreen community used the board’s public comment period on Jan. 13 to accuse district officials and the district’s attorney of providing false or misleading information to a public servant about supplemental contracts issued Sept. 4, 2023, and to call for resignations and repayment.

Angie Bunda, a parent, said the district’s handling of related legal work has cost taxpayers and demanded accountability. “At least 4 of you should tender your resignations as well as the superintendent and the COO should pay back the $49,755 that she has caused from all of this,” Bunda said, laying out itemized charges she described as related to the matter.

Camille Lohman, who cited statutory oaths and public‑trust obligations, told the board she had evidence the district’s attorney told a public servant the board had approved the supplemental contracts as stipends and that no investigation had been retained. “That statement is false, and or misleading,” Lohman said, and she recited past meetings and an investigator’s bill she said showed otherwise.

Adam Aguilera, who identified himself as a member of the Evergreen Education Association, said he raised concerns in 2024 about at least one supplemental contract that paid additional money for duties the contractor was already performing and criticized the investigation and attorney billing. “There is no question the district retained an expensive investigator to address those complaints and completed that investigation,” Aguilera said. He urged the board to hold district managers accountable.

Transcript records presented by speakers and referenced during comments included an investigator billing of $29,790 and a supplemental contract payment of $13,980 for the district’s chief operations officer; speakers also referred to attorney invoices of roughly $2,887.50 and $3,097.50. The speakers framed their remarks as calls for transparency and legal compliance; no district response or staff rebuttal to those specific allegations appears in the public record of the meeting.

The board did not take formal action on the allegations during the meeting. Community members said they had raised the matter at earlier hearings (including an Oct. 10, 2024 hearing they said the board attended) and urged the board to investigate further or consider personnel actions.