Multiple public commenters urge investigation into COO conduct and handling of supplemental contracts

Several community members used the public-comment period at the Evergreen Public Schools Board of Directors meeting on Jan. 27 to raise allegations about the district’s chief operations officer and the handling of supplemental contracts.

Angie Binder told the board she had reviewed public records and police reports that she says document "the COO's unnecessary and harassing contact with PSC President Mindy Traffer Cooper on 01/14/2026." She asked the board to place the COO on administrative leave pending investigation. "Why make voters pay an extra $35,000 to cover it up and allow falsehoods to continue?" Binder said.

Adam Aguilera, speaking as a member of the Evergreen Education Association, said documents shared at a prior meeting and since by email suggest the district’s lawyer and the COO provided "false or misleading information to a public servant, specifically a Vancouver police detective conducting a criminal investigation." Aguilera asked the board three specific questions: whether the board authorized the COO’s contact on Jan. 14, whether the COO told the PSC president that those reporting the concerns would be "held responsible," and why the COO is not on administrative leave.

Camille Lohman said she has been in contact with the Clark County prosecuting attorney’s office and disputed the COO’s claim to be "exonerated." Lohman cited a detective’s report that, she said, quoted the board president as stating supplemental contracts occurred before the president’s board tenure — a timeline that public records cited during comments contradict. "Why had he still not been provided the report or even mention of it during President Weatherspoon's phone call?" she asked.

Board Chair President Weatherspoon acknowledged the public concerns and noted there had been updates to the police report; she asked the board to review the documents and said she would follow up. Superintendent Dr. Maloney said he would research specific legal questions raised by board members about the public-records and police-report materials and offered to follow up after the meeting.

No formal motion to place the COO on leave or to open a new investigation was recorded in the meeting minutes or on the video record of the meeting; speakers said documentation had been provided to the board via email and public-records requests. Several commenters asked the board to make those documents and any staff actions public and to clarify whether the board had been told about supplemental contracts when they were first raised.

The board did not take a public vote or make an announcement about personnel action by the time the meeting adjourned.