They called themselves advocates.
The police report says different.
VPD Case 2025-017448 · Evergreen Public Schools · Vancouver, WA
In September 2025, with Evergreen Public Schools' classified employees on strike and the school year delayed, a small group of self-described parent advocates walked into the Vancouver Police Department's East Precinct with a packet of documents and a demand: investigate the district's Chief Operations Officer for a Class B felony.
What followed was not a whistleblower case. It was, according to the detective who investigated it, a campaign driven by political purposes — timed to impact active labor negotiations, directed exclusively at the district's lead negotiator, and publicly misrepresented on social media as a confirmed criminal investigation with pending charges.
The complainants circulated identical declarations under penalty of perjury and collected signatures from citizens who later told police they didn't know what they were signing. They posted the initial police intake report online, framing it as evidence of a VPD investigation that did not exist. They pressured the school board to remove the negotiator during a strike.
The Vancouver Police Department's investigation found no basis for criminal charges against the targeted employee. Detective Jay Alie formally entered Thiemann and Bunda as suspects under RCW 9.62.010.1 (Malicious Prosecution — Felony) on October 23, 2025, before reconsidering the statute's applicability on October 30. The completed investigation was referred to the Clark County Prosecutor's Office for consideration of the complainants' conduct. Every claim on this site is sourced directly from that investigation and supporting public records.
"It is clear from the timing and manner in which this complaint was made that it was done for political purposes with the goal and intention of impacting the negotiations between the district and labor union."
Three individuals at the center of the VPD investigation
Delivered the original complaint packet to VPD East Precinct but refused to answer any questions from the receiving officer. Represented by attorney Alan Harvey.
Operates the "EPS Advocate" social media accounts. Posted the police intake report online as evidence of a criminal investigation. Distributed form declarations for signature.
Submitted additional declarations and escalating emails to the Chief of Police, AG's office, and OSPI. Sent a 17-question email to the investigating detective pre-answering her own questions.
* VPD / Mark43 records list this person as "Suspect / Complainant" in connection with a potential malicious-prosecution allegation. Det. Alie later wrote that, after reviewing the statute, malicious prosecution did not appear to apply. The records reviewed do not show that VPD removed or corrected the Mark43 designation, and no charging decision is shown.
I didn't know this was for a crime... that's not fair whatsoever. I thought this was more about the way the whole strike was handled.
Every claim is one click from its primary source document.
The full narrative of how a complaint was manufactured, timed to a labor strike, and publicly misrepresented — told through the detective's own words and public records.
Every individual named in the investigation — complainants, district officials, law enforcement, legal counsel, and the citizens who signed declarations without reading them.
From the original 2023 contract through the 2025 complaint campaign and VPD investigation — every event mapped chronologically with source links.
The complete document archive: police reports, declarations, emails, contracts, audit reports, social media posts, and district policy documents.
How identical form declarations were circulated through a bus barn, signed by people who thought they were petitions, and submitted under penalty of perjury to the prosecutor's office.
What was claimed vs. what the evidence shows. Side-by-side comparisons of misrepresentations documented in the police investigation.