Our Investigator Speaks...

"The time for reducing serious governance failures to political narratives is over. Schools are not a battleground for partisan deflection and invoking it only serves to avoid responsibility rather than address the underlying issues." An extremely important email from our highly trained and skilled investigator- integral in uncovering 35+cases of employee sexual abuse in Jeffco Schools.

Ms. Tolleson & Ms. Dorland,

As you are now no doubt aware, I have served as an investigator involved in uncovering more than 35 substantiated cases of sexual abuse and misconduct within this district. I have communicated repeatedly with both of you regarding serious and ongoing concerns about the district’s practices, oversight, and systemic failures. Based on my more than 20 years of professional experience in employment law, human resources, workplace and misconduct investigations, criminal law, and criminal investigations, I can state unequivocally that I have not previously encountered circumstances presenting this level of risk, institutional breakdown, and exposure to harm. The scope, pattern, and severity of these matters raise profound concerns regarding compliance, governance, and the district’s ability—or willingness—to adequately protect students and staff. This assessment is not made lightly and reflects both the volume of cases uncovered and the repeated failures that have allowed such misconduct to persist unchecked.

SVSD has stated unequivocally that it has no record of any reference inquiry from Jeffco regarding Patrico Illanes. This is not surprising. I know, from direct experience in my own child’s case, that reference checks are often not conducted at all by Jeffco Public Schools and if they are they are wholly inadequate (i.e., calling colleagues and friends instead of actual present or past supervisors). That failure exposes the district to significant legal liability and foreseeable harm.

Jeffco’s statement suggesting that an administrator from Arvada High School contacted an administrator from Erie Middle School and then their HR department is vague, unsupported, and unpersuasive. If such a call had in fact occurred, your response would have included specifics—names, dates, and times—or, at minimum, an acknowledgment that such details exist but cannot be disclosed. Instead, none were provided. You also indicated that SVSD “did not disclose anything.” As you should be well aware, Colorado law places no affirmative disclosure obligation on a former employer, even in cases involving termination. The entire legal burden rests with the prospective employer to ask appropriate, competency-based questions during the reference process. Failure to do so is not a defense and it’s laughable but sad that you put that in a statement.

It is also disingenuous for the Superintendent to now raise potential legislative remedies such as those like Faith’s Law, when that very possibility was brought to your attention by Jeffco Kids First last spring and no meaningful action followed at that time.

This all raises a serious concern: why are school administrators who are overworked with little to no training or experience in employment vetting conducting reference checks at all? This function should be handled by Human Resources professionals who understand risk management, compliance, and best hiring practices—particularly in a school district operating in a highly litigious environment with known hiring and vetting failures. This information should also all be documented in the employee’s district file by experienced professionals. Jeffco doesn’t even appear to have a protocol for that. At a minimum, every reference check should include the following question: “Is this employee eligible for rehire or reemployment?” If the response is no, I’m not comfortable answering, or I can’t answer that, the candidate should not be hired. This is a basic, widely accepted hiring practice. Had this question been asked, I find it difficult to believe that Patricio Illanes would have been hired.

I personally have been raising this issue since November 2024, when I learned that no reference checks had been conducted on a teacher I reported for disturbing social media behavior. To date, I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for why this fundamental safeguard continues to be ignored. This is not a matter of hindsight—it is a matter of systemic failure, foreseeable risk, and accountability. I expect a clear explanation of current hiring protocols, who is responsible for reference checks, what questions are required, and what corrective actions will be implemented immediately to prevent this from happening again. Anything less will confirm that Jeffco is aware of these deficiencies and has chosen not to act.

I regret that I must raise another matter of significant concern. In my capacity as an investigator, I have been made aware of situations in which students who present serious and documented safety risks to other students and Jeffco employees are being returned to school environments that are not equipped to manage those risks—either in the short term or the long term. In some instances, recommendations made by judges presiding over the minors’ criminal proceedings, as well as by district staff trained in threat assessment—whose explicit role is to evaluate whether a student can safely attend a particular school—have been overridden by Ms. Tolleson. These decisions appear to have been made despite clear professional and legal warnings regarding the risks involved.

While I am fully aware of the legal requirements surrounding access to education, those laws do not require districts to place students in settings that endanger others. There are well-established alternative educational placements and interim solutions designed specifically for circumstances such as these. Choosing not to utilize those alternatives, particularly in the face of documented risk assessments, exposes the students, staff and the district to foreseeable harm and significant legal liability. This is not a theoretical or academic concern. It directly implicates student and staff safety, established standards of care, and the district’s non-delegable duty to protect those in its charge. Decisions involving high-risk student placements must be based on documented threat assessments, objective risk analysis, and professional judgment. Overriding such determinations without a defensible, evidence-based rationale exposes the district to foreseeable harm and substantial legal liability. I certainly hope the overriding of these decisions by Ms. Tolleson is not due to a fear of litigation because if something happens, you will be sued and you better have a solid case as to why many students and staff were placed at risk for one.

One final point must be made clear. When you or members of the Board are challenged on substantive issues, there appears to be a recurring tendency to deflect by characterizing that criticism as politically motivated. That same tactic has been used to dismiss Jeffco Kids First by inaccurately portraying it as a far-right organization. Before any attempt is made to apply that label to me, I suggest you review my voting record. I am a left-leaning independent who has voted primarily Democratic since I was 18 years old. My concerns are not partisan, ideological, or politically driven—they are rooted in accountability, student safety, and institutional integrity. The time for reducing serious governance failures to political narratives is over. Schools are not a battleground for partisan deflection and invoking it only serves to avoid responsibility rather than address the underlying issues.

I look forward to your timely responses.