Lara Dowling apologizes as Eagle County parents and residents press board over classroom comments

Lara Dowling offered a public apology at the Eagle County School District No. Re 50 board meeting on Sept. 24, apologizing for comments she made on Sept. 10 and saying she “abhors gun violence in all of its forms” and “truly regret[s] any distress this has caused.” She told the board she intends to learn from the episode and move forward.

Dozens of community members used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the board on next steps. Several speakers said Dowling’s remarks—described by multiple commenters as celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk—amounted to a breach of professional duties in front of students and demanded stronger action than the administration had disclosed. Linda Beckett said the remarks “promote murder and violence in the presence of her students” and asked where the employee stood in the district’s disciplinary process; Alexandra Vaughn cited the VSSSA student handbook definition of bullying and called the comments “threatening behavior.”

Other community members urged restraint. Wendy Riml of the Education Foundation and several parents noted Dowling’s 26 years of teaching and said a single mistake should not define a long career; Amy Lewis described Dowling as a valued art teacher whose former students continue to pursue art. Peter Gustafson and others criticized the district’s public messaging as insufficiently transparent and urged the administration to explain corrective steps that would rebuild trust.

Superintendent (identified later in the transcript as) Nick Coleman told the meeting the district “doesn’t condone, excuse, or marginalize” the comments, described the employee‑discipline continuum (verbal warning → written warning → formal letter of reprimand → leave/suspension → termination) and said some aspects of employee discipline are confidential under state law. He said the teacher was put on administrative leave while an investigation took place, that the teacher acknowledged the mistake and had expressed regret, and that the district would follow its collective bargaining agreement and applicable state law in making any personnel decisions.

Several commenters referenced district policy IMB and the district’s collective bargaining agreement (Article 20) when arguing that the teacher’s conduct violated expectations for classroom discussion. The board repeatedly cautioned that specific personnel outcomes are protected by privacy rules and could not be shared in public session. Board members thanked speakers for participating and urged people who believe they have experienced unbalanced instruction to report concerns through principals or district staff.

The meeting concluded without a board vote on personnel; the board approved other items on the agenda and said matters of discipline would proceed within the district’s established processes. The next regular board meeting is scheduled for Oct. 22, 2025.