District 49 CORA Response: Brad Miller and John Graham Emails

What this document is

The attached PDF consists of emails produced in response to a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to Falcon School District 49. The request sought one-on-one email communications between Brad Miller, then outside legal counsel for District 49, and John Graham, then president of the District 49 Board of Education.

The emails span 2022-2023, during a period of controversy over board governance, public comment rules, culture-war policies, and litigation.

Redactions

Portions of the emails are redacted by the district, not by the requester. Redactions appear to cover:

– Personal contact information
– Student-related or personnel-related information
– Privileged legal material

The statements quoted publicly are not redacted and appear in full in the district production.

What the document does not show

The PDF does not contain explicit references to later litigation involving CHSAA, Riverstone Academy, Alliance Defending Freedom, or First & Fourteenth. That absence is expected because those matters arose after many of these emails were written.

This document should be understood as early-stage evidence of approach and posture, not a comprehensive litigation roadmap.

What the document shows clearly

Brad Miller, while serving as counsel to a public school district, explicitly describes himself as an ideological actor, not a neutral legal advisor. He states that he:

– Helped create policies against CRT
– Opposed what he calls "transgender activism"
– Initiated prayer at the flagpole before board meetings
– Worked to make District 49 "the most conservative district in the state"
– Is aligned with organizations such as Moms for Liberty and the Independence Institute

These statements were made in writing, on the record, to a political media host, while copying multiple district officials.

Important context

The email excerpts are not isolated remarks. They align with documented policies adopted by District 49, public statements by board members, and subsequent litigation and governance breakdowns in other districts represented by the same attorney.

The issue raised is not criminal conduct. It is fitness, neutrality, and risk in public-sector legal representation.

What is being argued, and what is not

This document is not offered as proof of illegality. It is evidence that the attorney viewed his role as advancing controversial, non-educational culture-war issues, and that those issues were brought into public school governance intentionally.

The public relevance lies in foreseeability: districts considering the same attorney now have clear notice of the approach he brings.

Why this matters now

School district attorneys play a central role in agenda construction, policy framing, litigation strategy, and risk assessment. Hiring an attorney who openly embraces culture-war activism is not a neutral administrative decision. Communities have a right to evaluate that choice before, not after, the consequences unfold.