Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press Cherry Creek leaders on interpreter failures, contract signatures and bond spending
Summary
Multiple public speakers raised accountability concerns: a parent said CDE found violations for missing ASL interpreters; another speaker said a KORA request revealed an employment contract bearing signatures of people not in office; others questioned use of certificates of participation and bond spending priorities.
During the March 9 public‑comment period, several speakers directed questions and accusations at district governance and financial stewardship, prompting calls for investigation and greater transparency.
Brian Mast, who said he filed a state complaint, told the board that the Colorado Department of Education had found the district in violation for failing to fully implement his daughter’s IEP, specifically the lack of sign‑language interpreters in class. He asked the board to “do better” for students with disabilities (SEG 773–799). Multiple speakers later referenced related coverage and concerns about lapses in interpreter services (SEG 1193–1199).
Molly Lamar said she obtained an employment contract via a KORA request dated Feb. 23, 2026 that appears to bear signatures of individuals who, she said, did not legally hold the positions that would authorize the contract (Angela Garland and Kelly Bates, as cited in her comment). Lamar said the contract includes a salary increase, a six‑month severance provision and additional benefits and asked whether the board will nullify or rectify the agreement (SEG 846–868).
Other commenters pressed the board on bond spending choices and financing structures. Deb Bot pointed to the $950 million bond approved by voters in 2024 and argued that an item on the consent agenda made full replacement of West building programming contingent on a 2028 bond; she questioned allocating $7.8 million for new athletic facilities and $15 million for a professional women’s soccer stadium that she said were not in the original bond request and asked for a contingency plan if a future bond does not pass (SEG 1023–1050). Another speaker read a letter asking for public disclosure about the district’s use of certificates of participation for tens of millions of dollars in projects and asked for full public explanation of terms, payoff timelines and taxpayer impact (SEG 1078–1099).
Board members did not immediately overturn or cancel contracts or take votes on these issues during the meeting. The comments generated requests for follow‑up information from the audience and flagged items on the consent agenda for board consideration.
What’s next: board members may request staff follow up on the KORA contract questions, provide explanations about use of certificates of participation, and respond to the CDE-related complaint; the timing of those responses was not set during the meeting.
