This investigation is complete. This page documents feedback received from subjects of the investigation, corrections made in response, and our analysis of disputed claims — all sourced to primary documents.
Corrections are made when a factual error is identified and supported by primary source documentation. All corrections are logged here in full.
The following updates were made to improve precision and prevent misreading of the record — not in response to factual errors.
The following claims were raised by Camille Lowman in correspondence dated May 1 and May 4, 2026. We have included claims that are supported by evidence, reason, or logic. Claims that directly contradict the primary record without supporting documentation are not included.
Lowman is correct that this claim was not consistently attributed across all pages of the site following our initial correction. The Troffer-Cooper timeline card and story narrative were updated to include attribution to Williams' September 8 email and a note that VPD did not independently verify the account. However, the players page profile and two additional timeline references still presented the claim without full attribution.
We are correcting these remaining instances. The underlying claim — that Troffer-Cooper posted the complaint online — is supported by the record. What was insufficiently attributed was the specific claim about when and how the district became aware of it.
This claim has merit and is partially supported by the existing record. Attorney Alan Harvey told Det. Alie — independently and unprompted — that the district had paid for a formal investigation, that testimony was heard in a closed board session attended by Williams and Gomes, and that the board denied the complaint. Williams denied this to Alie, stating no investigation occurred and no investigator was hired.
The record supports that a formal proceeding did occur. However, the characterization of its scope requires clarification: our understanding is that the primary subject of that investigation was a separate complaint against Gomes personally, not the supplemental contracts specifically. The contracts appear to have been raised as a secondary matter within that proceeding — not its focus. Williams' flat denial to Alie that any investigation occurred was misleading in context, as he was aware of the related proceeding.
Complete documentation of this investigation is pending public records release, expected late May 2026. We will update this page and the contradictions page when those documents are in hand.
This is not our assertion. It is the direct, written conclusion of Det. Jay Alie in Supplement 5, his official closing report: "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."
The claim that "the strike was over before any meaningful action occurred" does not address the finding. The complaint was filed September 2, 2025. The strike began August 26 and was settled September 15. The complaint was filed during active negotiations, during a strike, targeting only the district's lead negotiator — while three other employees who received identical contracts were not mentioned. The social media campaign characterizing Gomes as a felony suspect ran throughout the strike period and explicitly questioned why she had not been removed from the negotiating team.
We report Det. Alie's findings as the authoritative record of this investigation. Disagreement with his conclusions is a matter for the Clark County Prosecutor's Office, not this site.