Open Letter to the Douglas County School Board: Sent by a concerned parent

nt

To,

President, Board Director Chrissy Williams

Board Director Brad Geiger

Board Director Susan Meek

Board Director Tim Moore

Board Director Becky Myers

Board Director Valerie Thompson

Board Director Kaylee Winegar

Superintendent Erin Kane

Board Directors and Superintendent Kane,

I am following up regarding the unscheduled agenda item announced towards the end of the August 27, 2024, Board meeting, specifically regarding a DCSD parent expressing concerns over classroom content via her social media account. I listened to the Board directors voice concerns regarding the medium chosen by the parent, but what I did not hear was sympathy for this parent’s child or the parent.

The curriculum issue, that is the topic at hand, was not DISCUSSED at the August 27 Board meeting. Instead, four Board Directors chose to focus on the medium this parent, Rep Bradley, used to bring attention to the matter, after previous channels were exhausted. 

Colorado Open Meetings Law

At the August 27 Board meeting it was clear that Director Myers, Director Winegar, Director Moore, and President Williams spoke freely, without using notes, during discussions regarding the unscheduled agenda item. By contrast, Director Geiger, Director Meek, and Director Thompson all read from a script and kept looking at their tablets while they were talking. This leads one to believe that Geiger, Meek, and Thompson held discussions on this topic prior to August 27, and that these three possibly may have violated Colorado’s Open Meetings Law, which is to ensure that public business concerning public policy is not conducted in secret. 

I mention this as it is odd that Geiger, Meek, and Thompson were so well prepared for this topic regarding Rep Bradley’s concern over curriculum, while Williams, Myers, Winegar, and Moore were not prepared. 

Brandi Bradley

Representative Bradley is first, a mother, a very concerned mother, that has previously brought up concerns regarding curriculum by going to teachers, by going to the principal, by having discussions with Board Directors, and by having discussions with Superintendent Kane. These separate issues have collectively not been resolved, and as such, is the likely driver for why this mother turned to social media.

This most recent incident is regarding her 15 yr. old child, coming home, and asking what gender fluidity is, which he learned about in his high school World History Class. The teacher, who has FOUR Pride flags in her classroom, was justifying teaching that Leonardo da Vinci may have been gender fluid. 

What was missing from the discussion was how this argument that da Vinci may have been gay and/or gender fluid, may be invalid. I listened to the recordings. Rep Bradley and her husband did not ask this curriculum to be removed. Rather, what I heard were parents asking that their viewpoints be considered, which the teacher did not consider stating that this is not a valid addition to the classroom discussion as religion is not part of instruction. This is troubling as the duty of DCSD is to teach children HOW to think critically, not WHAT to think.

Board Director Tim Moore

Director Moore stated that it is never okay to publicly release anyone’s personal identifiable information (POI), specifically not on social media as this type of behavior is dangerous and should not be used to get one’s point across. Moore implied that Rep Bradley doxed this teacher, and I will say that he is 100 percent wrong. 

Rep Bradley DID NOT dox DCSD, the school, or the teacher. Various media outlets such as the New York Post,  Newsweek, and DailyMail reported on this topic. Nowhere in any of these national outlets is DCSD, the teacher, or the specific school mentioned. Rep Bradley also did not list DCSD, the teacher, or the specific school in her social media posts, so it is unclear to me why Moore stated that any teacher’s or DCSD’s properties POI were mentioned by Rep Bradley. 

Moore also chose not to address the absurdity that a DCSD World History high school teacher is teaching that Leonardo da Vinci was gender fluid. Who cares what da Vinci’s sexuality was? And what in good gravy does this have to do with World History? The question Moore should have asked himself and others is: Why does DCSD have a high school World History teacher that teaches about Leonardo da Vinci’s purported sexuality? And should have also asked what does da Vinci’s sexuality have to do with the Mona Lisa, and how many other DCSD parents are in the dark about what their children are learning? 

Board Director Valerie Thompson

Director Thompson chose to bring up Rep Bradley’s social media post, in a coy manner, and emphasized that DCSD does not condone personal attacks on students and staff on social media. Like Moore, Thompson did not acknowledge what brought this parent to voice her concerns regarding the DCSD curriculum but rather falsely implied that Rep Bradley attacked a teacher. As referenced above, Rep Bradley DID NOT state DCSD, the high school, or teacher in her posts.

Thompson goes on to say that the fallout of “this behavior” can result in a “plethora of issues” for those being targeted. And she’s right – there are a plethora of issues now that Bradley is being targeted by DCSD’s Board of Directors as well as by the community at large. 

Board Director Brad Geiger

Director Geiger spoke about the dangers of social media and that its citizens are within their rights to criticize the District, the Board, and teachers if they have “legitimate concerns”. I ask Geiger this question – who decides what are legitimate concerns? Geiger also stated that there are “certain phrases” that are used in attacking people that may incite “dangerous behavior”. Begs the question – what phrases does Geiger think would lead to dangerous behavior? 

Geiger is right though regarding the power of social media. When Parasol Patrol along with Lacey Ganzy led a protest in front of DCSD in May of 2023, Geiger participated in this demonstration. Social media was the conduit to spread information about this demonstration that Geiger participated in. I wonder if any of the phrases used during this demonstration would be considered dangerous by Geiger?

Geiger went on to say that when “teachers are specifically identified and labeled” DCSD has to step up to support those teachers. Geiger knew and knows that Rep Bradley DID NOT use her social media to name DCSD, the high school, or the teacher. For Geiger to state this, is not only FALSE, but also spreading mis and disinformation within the community, the very thing Geiger is purportedly upset about. 

Board Director Susan Meek 

Director Meek began by stating that she would like to “strongly condemn the recent actions of a parent and elected official who chose to dox and publicly attack a dedicated teacher”. Doxing requires POI about the teacher being shared, with the objective of causing harm. Meek knows Rep Bradley DID NOT DO THIS. It is very troubling when an elected official such as Meek, chooses to use her power to spread mis/disinformation in the community. Meek knows that Rep Bradley DID NOT name DCSD, the high school, or teacher and yet stated that she did. This is wrong. I agree with Meek’s statement that no individual should be subjected to targeted harassment, yet that is what Meek did with this opening statement, by specifically targeting Rep Bradley. 

Meek stated that Rep Bradley in her social media “engaged in targeted harassment driven by intimidation and malice”. Meek went on to say that the Board must stand united against any form of bullying or intimidation. This is laughable given Meek’s opening statement that Rep Bradley doxed and attacked a teacher. By stating this, Meek herself is participating in the very behavior that she claims is wrong. 

Meek emphasized that it is important that DCSD ensures that teachers are protected. Yet at no time during her comments did Meek put emphasis on protecting students from curriculum indoctrination that teaches children WHAT TO think, not HOW TO think.  

DCSD Board of Education Core Values per DCSD BOE Director handbook – link here

The DCSD BOE Director handbook states the BOE supports a “Safe, Positive Culture and Climate” (page 2). In this section, it is stressed that DCSD’s “purposeful focus is on creating a caring, safe, fun, supportive, and positive learning and working environment for all students, district employees, parents, and community is manifest throughout the district”. 

I ask this question: How was this positive and safe learning environment incorporated when a parent’s child’s family value structure was challenged when her son was learning about “gender fluidity”, which this child and his parents had no clue was part of a high school teacher’s World History curriculum? 

DCSD Employee handbook (Link here) Harassment (page 5), Religious Accommodation (page 10), and Pages 29-30 in attached PDF

• Harassment: DCSD’s Employee handbook defines harassment as “the act of engaging in any unwelcome physical or verbal conduct, or any written, pictorial, or visual communication, directed at an individual or group because of that individual's or group's membership in, or perceived membership in, a protected class, which conduct, or communication is subjectively offensive to the individual alleging harassment and is objectively offensive to a reasonable individual who is a member of the same protected class”.

• Religious Accommodation: DCSD’s Employee handbook on religious accommodation states that DCSD “respects the religious beliefs and practices of all” and “and will make, on request, an accommodation for such observances when a reasonable accommodation is available that does not create an undue hardship”.

Rep Bradley and her son are devout Christians, which are a protected class per State and Federal Law. When the high school World History teacher instructed Bradley’s son with the unsubstantiated theory that Leonardo da Vinci is “gay” and “gender fluid”, this teacher did not present counter arguments to this theory. When Rep Bradley and her husband stated to the teacher that they are devout Christians, the teacher stated that her class is not about religion and no accommodations were made for their son. 

DCSD’s ThunderRidge Inclusion Policy, link here, and Page 31 in attached PDF

• DCSD’s ThunderRidge Inclusion Policy states it is committed to “supporting all students” and that students deserve to learn in an “inclusive environment”. 

Here’s my question to the Board and Superintendent Kane: How is ThunderRidge supporting all students in an inclusive environment if a student’s religious beliefs are suppressed during a DCSD’s high school world history class and the teacher offers no accommodation to religious students? 

DCSD Employee handbook (Link here) Social Media ( and Pages 29-30 in attached PDF

• DCSD’s Employee handbook regarding social media policy addresses employees who use personal social media. It states that social media may become a problem when it is “used to harass members of the community” or “harms the goodwill and reputation of DCSD amongst the community”. 

• The handbook states that when no policy guideline exists, employees are “expected to use their professional judgement” and “take the most prudent action possible”. 

• When employees mention DCSD in social media posts, they are to “make clear that you are a DCSD employee and that the views posted are yours alone and do not represent the views of DCSD”.

• The handbook also states that “All postings on social media must comply with DCSD’s policies related to unlawful discrimination and harassment, conflict of interest, confidential and proprietary information, anti-violence, and other applicable policies”.

SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS BY BRAD GEIGER

Brad Geiger has a DCSD School Board Director C Facebook page that he regularly posts on, which contradicts Geiger’s statements during the August 27 Board meeting where he “spoke about the dangers of social media”.  Geiger went on to state that there are “certain phrases” that are used in attacking people that may incite “dangerous behavior”. 

Here below is a summary of some of Geiger’s recent social media posts on his DCSD School Board Director C Facebook page

• Brad Geiger’s DCSD School Board District C noted on page 10 of this PDF

• Brad Geiger’s August 28 10:52am post on his DCSD official, political public Facebook page stated that the Douglas County GOP is run by “anti-government fanatics”. Brad went on to state that a local elected official doxed and attacked a teacher on social media and that this was “political posturing by someone desperate to get attention” and “we will be facing more and more as this Mom’s for Liberty fanatic” seeks “social media clout”. Page 11 of this PDF

• On August 1, 2024 Geiger posted on his DCSD official, political public Facebook page that he will be co-hosting a meet and greet for Colorado Rep Bob Marshall and Alyssa Nilemo, House District 44 candidate. Brad asks that people “drop by and bring your energy, your enthusiasm, and your check book”. Brad’s post on his DCSD page also posted a link for people to donate to Alyssa Nilemo’s campaign. Page 12 of this PDF

• On July 22, 2024 Geiger posted his personal beliefs on his DCSD official, political public Facebook page regarding discussion of a Board policy. In his comments, Brad referred to commenters speaking at a DCSD Board meeting as politically partisan, bigoted folks, and fanatics. Read for yourself on Page 13 of this PDF 

Brad Geiger is a member of Tiffany Love Baker’s “Douglas County Speakeasy” Facebook Group

Brad Geiger, using his PERSONAL Facebook page, is a member of the controversial “Douglas County Speakeasy” group that is owned by Tiffany Love Baker. Page 14 of this PDF

Tiffany Love Baker is also the owner of the Douglas County Watch Facebook page, where she regularly posts anti-Brandi Bradley posts. 

***Why would Brad associate himself with someone who is using social media to harass and bully a parent of DCSD?***

BRAD GEIGER’S PARTICIPATION IN AN ANTI-DCSD RALLY

Brad Geiger participated in protest against DCSD regarding four families suing DCSD over purported racism. Serious question:Has Brad Geiger recused himself from DCSD BOE discussions pertaining to this lawsuit against DCSD given that he participated in a protest against the district and has demonstrated his inability to be impartial? 

Additional information with a link showing Geiger participating in this demonstration can be found on Page 15 of this PDF

SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS OF AND BY SUSAN MEEK ON HER DCSD BOE FACEBOOK PAGE

• On January 31, 2022 Board Director Susan Meek, and two former Board Directors, collaborated in a rogue zoom call. Susan Meek stated that “the three us are not allowed to have this call unless it is public”.  Page 16 of this PDF

• On February 26, 2022 Susan used her open DCSD Facebook page to state the “new board members” actions cannot be justified. Page 17 of this PDF

• On October 22, 2022 Susan posted on her public DCSD Facebook page information and promotion of 5A and 5B. Page 18 of this PDF

I hope that it is clear that DCSD’s BOE’s reaction to a parent concerned about her son’s curriculum still remains unaddressed by the Board. The Board has chosen to make this mother’s concern a Board issue, ergo it is now a Board issue. I hope, and trust, that this mother’s religious beliefs will be taken into consideration in any discussion the Board may have regarding this topic. 

I also hope that each Board Director and Superintendent takes time to read through the Appendix in the attached PDF, starting at Page 8. It is clear that Brad Geiger, and to a degree Susan Meek, has violated their own individual concerns regarding social media, as well as DCSD’ Employee handbook, given the uncouth and unprofessional statements made by them concerning parents and community members of Douglas County. 

It would behoove DCSD to ask that Board directors refrain from using their professional Facebook to promote political candidates using their DCSD Board Director Facebook page and to ask that Board directors refrain from participating in demonstrations against DCSD.