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.
How a coordinated complaint campaign against a school district administrator ended with its organizers referred for felony prosecution review — and their legal counsel the subject of a complaint filed with the Washington State Bar Association.
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.
Following the money inside Evergreen Public Schools.
An independent review of EPS budget documents, state audit reports, and financial disclosures — examining how public funds are allocated, how the district reports those decisions, and where the official record diverges from public claims made by district leadership.
View Reports →A $4.5 million claim and what it reveals about the complainants' strategy.
Complainant Kendall Thiemann filed a tort claim against Evergreen Public Schools in June 2025. The 170-page filing provides a parallel narrative that, examined against the VPD record, raises significant questions about its factual foundation and legal strategy.
In Development →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.