Every claim on this site is sourced to a primary document — public records, police reports, or official filings. No anonymous sources. No advocacy.

Educational Materials Investigations About Contact
Investigative Reporting · Vancouver, Washington

The EPS Transparency Project

Documenting accountability in Evergreen Public Schools
through public records and primary source documents.

These projects reconstruct events from public records, police investigations, audited financial reports, interviews, and official filings. We do not advocate for any party — we let the evidence tell the story. Every factual claim is linked to its primary source.

Have a tip you'd like us to investigate?
Click Here to Send Us an Email →

Educational Materials

Reference documents and public records

Investigations

All findings grounded in public records
Investigation No. 1
In Research — Summary Available

Extra Pay, Extra Questions

The state auditor found what the police report left open — raising new questions about representations made to investigators.

In September 2023, EPS issued $31,104 in supplemental contracts to bargaining team members during an active teachers' strike. VPD found no criminal basis to charge the target. Then the SAO's May 2026 Management Letter found the district lacked documentation showing the contracts were approved before work began — and cited the Washington State Constitution's prohibition on extra compensation after services are rendered. We're examining whether that finding contradicts statements made to Det. Alie during the closed VPD investigation.

View Summary
Investigation No. 2
Complete

Advocates Exposed

How a coordinated complaint campaign against a school district administrator ended with its organizers referred for felony prosecution review.

In September 2025, a group of self-described parent advocates filed a criminal complaint against Evergreen Public Schools' Chief Operations Officer during an active teacher strike. Vancouver Police Department's investigation found no basis for criminal charges against the target — and instead referred the complainants themselves to the Clark County Prosecutor's Office for felony prosecution review under RCW 9.62.010.1, with their legal counsel subsequently the subject of a complaint filed with the Washington State Bar Association.

Read the Investigation
Investigation No. 3
In Research

The Tort Claim

A $4.5 million claim and what it reveals about the complainants' strategy.

In June 2025, Kendall Thiemann — named as a suspect in the VPD's felony malicious prosecution referral — filed a $4.5 million tort claim against Evergreen School District. The 113-page filing presents Thiemann's own account of events, including allegations of retaliation and a separate thread involving an ESD principal's pre-hire history in Arizona. We present the claim in full, with context the author does not provide.

Read the Filing
Investigation No. 4
In Development

Dodge v. EPS

The same individuals referred for felony prosecution review in Investigation No. 2 keep citing this federal case — but the court's actual findings may tell a different story.

The complainants at the center of Investigation No. 2 have repeatedly invoked this 2019 case as part of their broader campaign. In it, a teacher filed a federal lawsuit against Principal Caroline Garrett, HR Officer Janae Gomes, and the district after being told he could not bring a MAGA hat to staff-only training. The Ninth Circuit's 2022 ruling was split: it found that Garrett had violated the teacher's First Amendment rights, while explicitly clearing both Gomes and the district of any wrongdoing. We're examining how this ruling is being cited — and whether those citations hold up against what the court actually wrote.

View Analysis
Our Methodology

How We Work

The EPS Transparency Project builds each investigation from the ground up using primary source documents obtained through Washington State public records law (RCW 42.56). We do not accept anonymous tips as evidence, and we do not characterize events beyond what the documents establish.

Where official investigations have reached documented conclusions — such as the VPD's findings in Case 2025-017448 — we treat those conclusions as the authoritative factual record and state them as such. Where the record is incomplete or contested, we say so explicitly.

Primary sources only
No anonymous sources
Claims linked to documents
Corrections published openly