WCSD Dais March 2024

WCSD Smear Campaign Against Trustee Jeff Church

False Accusations = Election Interference?

WCSD Jeff Church Dais Evidence

Trustee Church seated alone at the dais when complainants claim he harassed them. (District video image.)

Washoe County School District Trustee Jeff Church was recently informed of accusations made against him by two unnamed school district employees. Church has denied the accusations and claims to have videotape evidence proving his innocence. He has requested an outside investigation, believing an internal investigation would be biased or incomplete in order to protect the district and false accusers.

With the appearance of a smear campaign against Church who is running for his second term as District A Trustee, public attendance at the meeting exceeded 100, the overwhelming majority speaking in support of him. Church is the sole conservative on the school board and frequently the only “no vote” on agenda items. (Trustee Westlake, who claims to be a conservative, votes with the board’s majority liberal/progressives. She has refused to be the required second trustee with Church to place items on school board agendas.)

The district has:
  • refused to follow established District Regulation 4465. (See Regulation 4465 below.)
  • refused to conduct an outside investigation of the complaint.
  • refused to resolve the issue internally, instead seeking an additional $500,000 to cover legal fees they claim Church will cost the district.
  • budgeted an additional $500,000 to legal counsel, without specifying how the funds would be spent.
  • vilified Church as being responsible for wasting funds that benefit teachers and students. No mention was made of administrators who would also benefit from the funds.
  • made no mention of the many new lawsuits and increasing legal fees the District is presently handling. The District recently paid a plaintiff a record-breaking judgment against the District exceeding $4 million.
  • inaccurately purported the complainants to be “whistleblowers” when that term can only be applied to individuals AFTER an investigation has been completed.
  • has involved the ACLU at Board President Beth Smith’s request. The ACLU has spoken against any outside investigation and is prepared to litigate to protect the names of the accusers if the outside investigation is done.
Trustee Church has:
Jeff Church Phone

Filing as WCSD Candidate, District A, 2024

  • requested an investigation that can be conducted without publicly identifying the accusers; he has repeatedly stated that he knows who his accusers are.
  • requested that the district conduct an outside investigation.
  • reported that a whistleblower reached out with detailed information that appears reliable and with no motives indicated. It includes detailed knowledge of a high-level conspiracy against Church regarding the fabricated harassment complaints. A high-ranking person in WCSD is implicated.
  • requested full transparency for the public regarding the complaints except for redacting the names of the two low-level accusers.
  • requested fact-checking of the numerous false and slanderous statements made by WCSD Chief Counsel Neil Rombardo during his March 12th agenda item presentations.

The Jeff Church Slaughter by Deep State #2

(Public Comment: V. Fiannaca)

One statement: If you don’t break Open Meeting Law, you don’t have to defend against it.

As much as you’ve slandered Jeff Church, he was still elected by the citizens.

I named my statement today “The Jeff Slaughter by Deep State #2.” For those of you who weren’t here for the first one, it was something else.

Here we go again!  Only this time it is different.  This time it is an election interference case.  One single conservative on the school board has caused so much chaos that he must be extinguished by any method possible.  When he did not walk away peacefully, as you thought he would, you resorted to your next best tactic . use the full on media assault.  One has to ask why are all the boards and commissions in this town so afraid to include conservatives in the conversation?  It is because you have had total control for so long.  Conservatives have been asleep at the wheel, but are waking up in record numbers and wanting to participate in the government which controls their lives, or at least be a part of the conversation.

Parents and teachers should be insulted by the threat put out in this call to meeting to reduce services to your students and to reduce teacher pay. You notice they did not threaten to reduce administrators’ pay or the total number of administrators.  You must also ask, why doesn’t the district disclose all the lawsuits it is engaged in and the total cost to the district for those?  You would be very surprised at that number.

Trust me when I say this assault is on a duly elected board member, one who did not have the benefit of appointment incumbency, will not sit well with the public.  We can see right through this attempt to smear and malign. It is being done on a national scale to President Trump. It seems to be the model used by the Democrat Party lately. When all else fails, smear and then use the wrap up smear as Nancy would say! This district is dirty, and hopefully four of you will be un-elected come November.

I’m very alarmed that you don’t want more transparency because trust in our system is what’s going to keep you alive, and right now, you’re trying to keep it more closed and more tight and that’s a bad thing, that’s a really, really bad thing.

Video [HERE]


Church Complaints and Lawsuits NOT Frivolous or In Bad Faith

(Public Comment: S. Finley)

My name is Scott Finley. I am a resident of Washoe County and have a military background in the United States Air Force.

The Washoe County School District Board of Trustees must reject the abuse and misuse of School District funds for the expressed purpose of harassing, litigating, and persecuting Trustee Church.

Based on the current language of Agenda item 3, if Trustee Church were to be sexually harassed and file a complaint, this School District would be ready to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the abuser, not the victim. In addition, the language openly vilifies Trustee Church, pitting the entire Washoe County School District against him by portraying Trustee Church as the one responsible for negatively affecting School District employees’ salaries and programs for students.

It comes as no surprise that psychopaths seated in the role of protecting children would have no problem hiding behind and opportunistically using children as human shields.

The background information for Agenda Item 3 discusses how Trustee Church has cost the School District hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, implying that the complaints and lawsuits were made in bad faith and are frivolous. However, it intentionally fails to recognize that the prevailing side in a lawsuit can request relief in the form of costs and attorney fees. If legal counsel for the School District wasn’t awarded costs and attorney fees, then the Court must have found that the complaints and lawsuits made by Trustee Church were made in good faith and weren’t frivolous.

The purpose of whistleblower protection is to ensure justice, not to provide camouflage for those who seek to execute injustices upon society in total secrecy.

Direct evidence in the form of video footage obtained through a public records request directly proves that the female whistleblowers in question never interacted with Trustee Church. It is a direct fact that the women in question are not whistleblowers, therefore whistleblower protection does not apply. As there are no whistleblowers to retaliate against, so by default, opening an investigation would not be a form of retaliation.

The truth only intimidates those who fear it will uncover their treachery.

Agenda Item 3 is nothing more than an attempt by this Board to gaslight its constituents and double-down by attacking the character and professional competence of the real victim and whistleblower here, Trustee Church.

How ironic is it that this Board reached out to the ACLU who is now threatening costly litigation if an investigation is opened, when this same Board accuses Trustee Church of costing the School District money through legal fees? Let us all thank Trustee Smith for her brilliant foresight in making sure to contact the ACLU!

Video [HERE]

ACLU Letter

Click here to read.


A Cover-Up in Plain View

(Public Comment: S. Tibbett)

You must think we’re stupid to believe your lies. Yeah, you. Just because you said it doesn’t make it true, and I’m here to paint a picture for you.

Trustee Church is doing his best to hold our school district and this board accountable for their actions by doing his job, and certain people do not like it. Unlike Trustee Westlake, he refuses to drink their Kool Aid and will not subscribe to their “go along to get along“ mentality. And for that, I have much respect for him. I strongly encourage him to keep up the pressure to expose the truth because, honestly, I smell a cover-up.

Why else would our school district and board of trustees refuse to support an investigation into allegations made against one of their own? It’s no secret certain board members on this dais hold a deep disdain for Trustee Church and would love for him to either resign or be removed from this board. Are you afraid the truth will be exposed if an investigation is conducted? It really appears that way.

Video clearly shows him by himself at the time the alleged harassment was to have occurred, so why are the board and district desperately trying to hide the truth?

Will it expose a lie regarding the true number of applications received for the Safe and Healthy Schools Commission? On page 3 of Administrative Form 9105 clearly states that the applications for the committees of the district are public documents. So why would Enfield, Smith, and the general counsel‘s office collude to deny Trustee Church’s request for copies of all the applications and supporting emails? It’s kinda weird, don’t you think?

Even weirder is the timeline of these events.

  • July 2023, Trustee Church sends an email to [previous WCSD Superintendent] Enfield and Smith requesting copies of the applications. Request denied.
  • August 2023, Trustee Church submits a public records request to the general counsel and was illegally denied again. And then,
  • September 2023, Trustee Church is falsely accused of harassment. I’m sure it’s purely a coincidence, except, I don’t believe in coincidences.

So, whose idea was it to defame Trustee Church with the false allegations of harassment? Was it Enfield‘s idea, and that’s why she resigned suddenly in November of 2023? Did she employ the whistleblowers to slander Trustee Church?

These are questions we need answered. That’s why we need an investigation. Are district counsel and this board trying to clean up by covering up unethical actions taken against Trustee Church? It is the cover-up that’s going to get you.

I’m really disappointed in you, Trustee Nicolet. I never thought you would be one to participate in unethical behavior to discredit Trustee Church’s upstanding character. I have lost all respect for you!


Regulations not followed

(Public Comment: Dinah Maher)

First of all, before I even begin, I’d like to say that a complainant is not a whistleblower until the complaint is investigated and verified.

I am speaking in support of Mr. Church whom I do not personally know, nor have I ever had a face to face conversation with him. I do believe that Mr. Church and indeed the alleged complainants or as Mr. Rombaro spins as “whistleblowers” are entitled to the remedies afforded them under WCSD Administrative Regulation 4425.

Under Item 4 of 4425, the Complaint Review

a. Upon receiving a complaint of alleged harassment and/or discrimination, the administrator/supervisor shall take any immediate necessary action to ensure the safety and well-being of the complainant(s0) or other employee(s) that have alleged harm.

I would ask at this point, and I’m sure the public would be curious to know what, if any, actions were taken to protect the complainants?

Under Item 5 of the same regulation, the Investigation Progress

a. The district will endeavor to complete an investigation into harassment or discrimination not later than 15 business days after the administrator/supervisor receives the complaint. Additional time shall be allowed when necessary to complete all interviews or gather pertinent information. In the event the investigation cannot be completed within the initial 15 business day time period, the administrator/supervisor will notify the Complainant(s) with the estimated date of completion.

Here, I would like to ask, and again I’m sure the public would be curious to know about the nature of the investigation process once a complaint was filed and if – as reported in the newspaper – the Board President Smith and Trustee Nicolet did indeed meet with Trustee Church. If so, having apparent knowledge of the alleged incident, what role did they play in the investigation process and in initiating that investigation as required under 4425?

My final question to the board and to the district is why approve a sum of $500,000 to defend against the charges against Mr. Church why he is NOT seeking monetary damages? The only conclusion I can draw with my limited knowledge of the facts is that you must have done something wrong that needs defending. In my experience, doing the right thing and telling the truth usually doesn’t cost much, anything at all. You could literally save the district considerable time and money by simply telling the truth and making everything a matter of public record right here and now.

And a quick reminder to everyone involved, I believe that accusations, if proven false, would not be protected by the first amendment. You can tell someone you hate them, or that they suck and even worse, but when you start telling lies about a person, it’s a whole new territory and the only way that these facts could be determined, is if an investigation were conducted.

Video [HERE]


Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [360.02 KB]

(The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Nevada Signal.)